ANALYSIS OF IN VITRO MUTANTS OF CAULIFLOWER MOSAIC VIRUS

Author(s):  
I. Koenig ◽  
L. Dixon ◽  
J. Penswick ◽  
M. Pietrzak ◽  
Th. Hohn
1988 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Gordon ◽  
P. Pfeiffer ◽  
J. Fütterer ◽  
T. Hohn

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 817-829
Author(s):  
Lyubov A. Ryabova ◽  
Thomas Hohn

The shunt model predicts that small ORFs (sORFs) within the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S RNA leader and downstream ORF VII are translated by different mechanisms, that is, scanning–reinitiation and shunting, respectively. Wheat germ extract (WGE) and rabbit reticulocyte lysate (RRL) in vitro translation systems were used to discriminate between these two processes and to study the mechanism of ribosomal shunt. In both systems, expression downstream of the leader occurred via ribosomal shunt under the control of a stable stem and a small ORF preceding it. Shunting ribosomes were also able to initiate quite efficiently at non-AUG start codons just downstream of the shunt landing site in WGE but not in RRL. The short sORF MAGDIS from the mammalian AdoMetDC RNA, which conditionally suppresses reinitiation at a downstream ORF, prevented shunting if placed at the position of sORF A, the 5′-proximal ORF of the CaMV leader. We have demonstrated directly that sORF A is translated and that proper termination of translation at the 5′-proximal ORF is absolutely required for both shunting and linear ribosome migration. These findings strongly indicate that shunting is a special case of reinitiation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 88 (10) ◽  
pp. 2872-2880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mounia Khelifa ◽  
Sandra Journou ◽  
Kalpana Krishnan ◽  
Daniel Gargani ◽  
Pascal Espérandieu ◽  
...  

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) is transmitted by aphids. For acquisition by the vector, a transmissible complex must form, composed of the virus particle, the viral coat-associated protein P3 and the helper protein P2. However, the components of the transmissible complex are largely separated in infected plant cells: most P3 virions are confined in electron-dense inclusion bodies, whereas P2 is sequestered in electron-lucent inclusion bodies (elIBs). This spatial separation controls virus acquisition by favouring the binding of virus-free P2 to the vector first, rendering the vector competent for later uptake of P3 virions. Consequently, sequential acquisition of virus from different cells or tissues is possible, with important implications for the biology of CaMV transmission. CaMV strains Campbell and CM1841 contain a single amino acid mutation (G94R) in the helper protein P2, rendering them non-transmissible from plant to plant. However, the mutant P2-94 protein supports aphid transmission when expressed heterologously and supplied to P3–CaMV complexes in vitro. The non-transmissibility of P2-94 was re-examined in vivo and it is shown here that the non-transmissibility of this P2 mutant is not due to low accumulation levels in infected plants, as suggested previously, but more specifically to the failure to form elIBs within infected plant cells. This demonstrates that elIBs are complex viral structures specialized for aphid transmission and suggests that viral inclusion bodies other than viral factories, most often considered as ‘garbage cans’, can in fact exhibit specific functions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document