Single cell analysis reveals human cytomegalovirus drives latently infected cells towards an anergic-like monocyte state.
cytomegalovirus
hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells
herpesvirus
human
infectious disease
latency
microbiology
reactivation
single-cell RNA-seq
Journal
eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 01 2020
22 01 2020
Historique:
received:
24
09
2019
accepted:
21
01
2020
pubmed:
23
1
2020
medline:
10
4
2021
entrez:
23
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) causes a lifelong infection through establishment of latency. Although reactivation from latency can cause life-threatening disease, our molecular understanding of HCMV latency is incomplete. Here we use single cell RNA-seq analysis to characterize latency in monocytes and hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs). In monocytes, we identify host cell surface markers that enable enrichment of latent cells harboring higher viral transcript levels, which can reactivate more efficiently, and are characterized by reduced intrinsic immune response that is important for viral gene expression. Significantly, in latent HSPCs, viral transcripts could be detected only in monocyte progenitors and were also associated with reduced immune-response. Overall, our work indicates that regardless of the developmental stage in which HCMV infects, HCMV drives hematopoietic cells towards a weaker immune-responsive monocyte state and that this anergic-like state is crucial for the virus ability to express its transcripts and to eventually reactivate. Most people around the world unknowingly carry the human cytomegalovirus, as this virus can become dormant after infection and hide in small numbers of blood stem cells (which give rise to blood and immune cells). Dormant viruses still make their host cells read their genetic information and create viral proteins – a process known as gene expression – but they do not use them to quickly multiply. However, it is possible for the cytomegalovirus to reawaken at a later stage and start replicating again, which can be fatal for people with weakened immune systems. It is therefore important to understand exactly how the virus can stay dormant, and how it reactivates. Only certain infected cells allow dormant viruses to later reactivate; in others, it never starts to multiply again. Techniques that can monitor individual cells are therefore needed to understand how the host cells and the viruses interact during dormant infection and reactivation. To investigate this, Shnayder et al. infected blood stem cells in the laboratory and used a method known as single-cell RNA analysis, which highlights all the genes (including viral genes) that are expressed in a cell. This showed that in certain cells, the virus dampens the cell defenses, leading to a higher rate of viral gene expression and, in turn, easier reactivation. Further experiments showed that the blood stem cells that expressed the viral genes were marked to become a type of immune cells known as monocytes. In turn, these infected monocytes were shown to be less able to defend the body against infection, suggesting that latent human cytomegalovirus suppresses the body’s innate immune response. The reactivation of human cytomegalovirus is a dangerous issue for patients who have just received an organ or blood stem cells transplant. The study by Shnayder et al. indicates that treatments that boost innate immunity may help to prevent the virus from reawakening, but more work is needed to test this theory.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Most people around the world unknowingly carry the human cytomegalovirus, as this virus can become dormant after infection and hide in small numbers of blood stem cells (which give rise to blood and immune cells). Dormant viruses still make their host cells read their genetic information and create viral proteins – a process known as gene expression – but they do not use them to quickly multiply. However, it is possible for the cytomegalovirus to reawaken at a later stage and start replicating again, which can be fatal for people with weakened immune systems. It is therefore important to understand exactly how the virus can stay dormant, and how it reactivates. Only certain infected cells allow dormant viruses to later reactivate; in others, it never starts to multiply again. Techniques that can monitor individual cells are therefore needed to understand how the host cells and the viruses interact during dormant infection and reactivation. To investigate this, Shnayder et al. infected blood stem cells in the laboratory and used a method known as single-cell RNA analysis, which highlights all the genes (including viral genes) that are expressed in a cell. This showed that in certain cells, the virus dampens the cell defenses, leading to a higher rate of viral gene expression and, in turn, easier reactivation. Further experiments showed that the blood stem cells that expressed the viral genes were marked to become a type of immune cells known as monocytes. In turn, these infected monocytes were shown to be less able to defend the body against infection, suggesting that latent human cytomegalovirus suppresses the body’s innate immune response. The reactivation of human cytomegalovirus is a dangerous issue for patients who have just received an organ or blood stem cells transplant. The study by Shnayder et al. indicates that treatments that boost innate immunity may help to prevent the virus from reawakening, but more work is needed to test this theory.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31967545
doi: 10.7554/eLife.52168
pii: 52168
pmc: PMC7039680
doi:
pii:
Banques de données
GEO
['GSE138838', 'GSE101341']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : H2020 European Research Council
ID : STG-2014–638142
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0701279
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S00081X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Infect-ERA
ID : TANKACY
Informations de copyright
© 2020, Shnayder et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
MS, AN, BR, BB, ML, NF, EP, SA, EB, DG, AA, BS, JS, NS, MS No competing interests declared
Références
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2009 Jan;22(1):76-98, Table of Contents
pubmed: 19136435
Virology. 2009 May 25;388(1):78-90
pubmed: 19349057
J Virol. 2004 May;78(9):4444-53
pubmed: 15078925
Cell Rep. 2017 Jan 31;18(5):1312-1323
pubmed: 28147283
J Virol. 1999 Jun;73(6):4806-12
pubmed: 10233941
Nat Microbiol. 2018 Apr;3(4):503-513
pubmed: 29588542
J Exp Med. 2017 Jul 3;214(7):1913-1923
pubmed: 28606987
J Virol. 2019 May 15;93(11):
pubmed: 30867313
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jan 10;109(2):588-93
pubmed: 22203987
J Virol. 2012 Sep;86(18):9854-65
pubmed: 22761372
mBio. 2018 Apr 24;9(2):
pubmed: 29691342
Org Lett. 2009 May 7;11(9):1999-2002
pubmed: 19385672
J Immunol. 2010 Mar 15;184(6):3213-22
pubmed: 20173022
Immunol Cell Biol. 2012 Oct;90(9):839-40
pubmed: 23032370
Elife. 2019 May 15;8:
pubmed: 31090537
J Gen Virol. 2005 Nov;86(Pt 11):2949-2954
pubmed: 16227215
Nat Commun. 2017 Mar 14;8:14781
pubmed: 28290449
Future Microbiol. 2010 Jun;5(6):883-900
pubmed: 20521934
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Bioinformatics. 2011 Jun 15;27(12):1739-40
pubmed: 21546393
Blood. 1995 Dec 1;86(11):4086-90
pubmed: 7492764
Cell Syst. 2018 Jun 27;6(6):679-691.e4
pubmed: 29886109
Nat Protoc. 2019 Jun;14(6):1841-1862
pubmed: 31101904
J Gen Virol. 2008 Feb;89(Pt 2):359-368
pubmed: 18198366
mBio. 2019 Dec 3;10(6):
pubmed: 31796538
Blood. 2002 Oct 15;100(8):2867-73
pubmed: 12351397
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1119:165-96
pubmed: 24639224
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Nov 1;43(9):1143-51
pubmed: 17029132
Elife. 2018 Feb 16;7:
pubmed: 29451494
Nat Cell Biol. 2017 Apr;19(4):271-281
pubmed: 28319093
PLoS Pathog. 2017 Oct 26;13(10):e1006678
pubmed: 29073251
J Immunol. 2008 Jul 1;181(1):698-711
pubmed: 18566437
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 7;13(12):e0208602
pubmed: 30532146
PLoS Pathog. 2014 Feb 20;10(2):e1003962
pubmed: 24586165
Cell. 2015 Dec 17;163(7):1663-77
pubmed: 26627738
Transfusion. 2001 Oct;41(10):1249-57
pubmed: 11606824
Immun Ageing. 2016 Jan 05;13:1
pubmed: 26734066
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 25;102(43):15545-50
pubmed: 16199517
J Virol. 2007 Jul;81(14):7683-94
pubmed: 17507481
Science. 2014 Feb 14;343(6172):776-9
pubmed: 24531970
Elife. 2018 Feb 16;7:
pubmed: 29451492
Mol Immunol. 2011 May;48(9-10):1160-7
pubmed: 21458073
Front Immunol. 2017 Jun 26;8:733
pubmed: 28694811
Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Apr;32(4):381-386
pubmed: 24658644
Elife. 2020 Jan 22;9:
pubmed: 31967545
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Dec 5;114(49):E10586-E10595
pubmed: 29158406
J Virol. 2013 Sep;87(18):10273-82
pubmed: 23864618
PLoS Pathog. 2018 Feb 15;14(2):e1006905
pubmed: 29447285
mBio. 2018 Mar 13;9(2):
pubmed: 29535194
J Mol Biochem. 2017;6(1):13-25
pubmed: 28491825
J Gen Virol. 1991 Sep;72 ( Pt 9):2059-64
pubmed: 1654370
Blood. 2004 Aug 1;104(3):687-95
pubmed: 15090458
Viruses. 2014 Feb 13;6(2):782-807
pubmed: 24531335
J Gen Virol. 1996 Dec;77 ( Pt 12):3099-102
pubmed: 9000102
Nat Commun. 2019 Oct 25;10(1):4878
pubmed: 31653857
Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;325:63-83
pubmed: 18637500
Front Microbiol. 2019 Mar 21;10:577
pubmed: 30949159