![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 275, Issue 9, 6160-6166, March 3, 2000
From the Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale, CNRS
UPR 9062, 205 Route de Narbonne, 31077 Toulouse, France
Low pH-induced fusion mediated by the
hemagglutinin (HA) of influenza virus involves conformational changes
in the protein that lead to the insertion of a "fusion peptide"
domain of this protein into the target membrane and is thought to
perturb the membrane, triggering fusion. By using whole virus, purified
HA, or HA ectodomains, we found that shortly after insertion, pores of
less than 26 Å in diameter were formed in liposomal membranes. As
measured by a novel assay, these pores stay open, or continue to close
and open, for minutes to hours and persist after pH neutralization. With virus and purified HA, larger pores, allowing the leakage of
dextrans, were seen at times well after insertion. For virus, dextran
leakage was simultaneous with lipid mixing and the formation of
"fusion pores," allowing the transfer of dextrans from the liposomal to the viral interior or vice versa. Pores did not form in
the viral membrane in the absence of a target membrane. Based on these
data, we propose a new model for fusion, in which HA initially forms a
proteinaceous pore in the target, but not in the viral membrane, before
a lipidic hemifusion intermediate is formed.
Influenza virus enters its host cells by endocytosis, followed by
fusion between the endosomal and the viral membrane. Fusion is mediated
by the trimeric integral membrane protein hemagglutinin (HA)1 (for reviews see Refs.
1 and 2) and is triggered by the low endosomal pH, which induces a
conformational change in the protein. Each monomer of HA consists of
two disulfide-linked subunits, the smaller one, HA2, is
membrane-anchored at the C terminus. The N terminus of this subunit
consists of a hydrophobic stretch of amino acids known as the "fusion
peptide," which is buried in the stem of the HA trimer at neutral pH
(3). The conformational change at low pH moves this peptide to the
outside of the protein (4), and studies of liposome-virus fusion have
shown that the peptide then enters the hydrophobic interior of the
target membrane for fusion (5, 6). Insertion could perturb the target
membrane locally, providing a starting point for fusion. We and others have found that virus (7) or a single purified trimer of the ectodomain
of HA (8), prepared by bromelain digestion of HA (BHA), produce a pore
in target membranes at low pH, allowing the leakage of water-soluble
molecules across these membranes. Whereas the conformational change and
insertion of the fusion peptide are clearly required for fusion (9,
10), little is known of the mechanism whereby the protein achieves the
merger of the lipid bilayers. The formation of either lipidic or
proteinaceous intermediate structures has been proposed to precede
membrane merger. Lipidic intermediates could be "stalks" of fused
outer membrane leaflets, formed after a focal perturbation of the
target membrane bilayer by the inserted viral fusion peptides (11, 12).
This "hemifusion" intermediate would then expand laterally, be
followed by breakthrough and merger of the inner leaflets at this
point, leading to complete fusion. Although several observations are
compatible with this theory (13-15), it follows that lipids would line
the first aqueous connection between the viral and the target membrane
interior, the so-called "fusion pore." However, electrophysiological measurements have shown that fusion pores form
before lipid mixing can be detected (16). Thus, alternatively, it was
proposed that the fusion pores may be proteinaceous (17) and would
expand gradually, incorporating lipids as they open. More recent data
suggest, however, that a lipidic connection between the membranes may
form before fusion pore formation after all but that extensive lipid
mixing would be hindered by the presence of HA in the membrane, thus
supporting the first theory while explaining the data that gave rise to
the second theory (18).
Here we show that BHA induces the formation of small pores that stay
open, or open and close, for a long time but do not allow the passage
of dextrans (mass 3 kDa). Viral HA or purified intact HAs initially
create small pores also, but much larger pores are formed later. Large
pores also formed in reconstituted viral membranes during fusion with
liposomes but not in the absence of target membranes. By taking into
account the available evidence for lipidic intermediates containing a
hemifusion diaphragm in the literature, we propose that although
lipidic hemifusion intermediates are involved in influenza
virus-induced fusion, the perturbation of the target membrane at the
site of fusion initially leads to formation of a large pore in the
target membrane, and we discuss the role of this pore in initiating fusion.
Liposomes--
Multilamellar vesicles were produced by
resuspension of dry lipid films of egg phosphatidylcholine, egg
phosphatidylethanolamine (both from Avanti Polar Lipids, Birmingham,
AL), gangliosides (type III from bovine brain, estimated molecular
weight 1,500 g/mol, from Sigma) at a molar ratio of 6:3:1 in buffer A
(NaCl 145 mM, HEPES 2.5 mM, EDTA 1 mM, pH 7.4). This suspension was frozen and thawed five
times, and large unilamellar vesicles were made from the multilamellar
vesicles by extrusion through 0.1- or 0.4-µm defined pore
polycarbonate filters (Nucleopore, Pleasanton, CA) (19). Remaining
multilamellar liposomes were removed by centrifugation. Phospholipid
phosphate was determined according to Böttcher et al.
(20).
Leakage Measurements--
Calcein was encapsulated into
liposomes by hydrating the lipid film in buffer containing 75 mM calcein, 85 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM HEPES, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.4. After extrusion as described
above, free dye was removed by molecular sieve chromatography on
Sephadex G-75 with buffer A. Tetramethylrhodamines coupled to dextrans with a molecular mass of 3,000 or 10,000 Da (TMRD-3,000 and
TMRD-10,000) were entrapped into liposomes by hydrating a lipid film in
buffer A containing 20 mg/ml of the dyes. After liposome extrusion as described above, through a 0.4-µm filter for maximum entrapment efficiency, free dye was removed by molecular sieve chromatography on
Sephadex G-75 for TMRD-3,000 or G-200 for TMRD-10,000 using buffer A. Relief of self-quenching due to dilution upon leakage or fusion was
measured by monitoring calcein fluorescence at 515 nm, with excitation
at 495 nm, and TMRD fluorescence at 580 nm, with excitation at 530 nm.
These measurements were carried out in buffer containing 135 mM NaCl, 15 mM sodium citrate, 10 mM MES, 5 mM HEPES, 1 mM EDTA at pH
5.1 or 7.4, 0 or 37 °C (buffer B). Fluorescence data were normalized
by setting the initial fluorescence intensity of TMRD or calcein-loaded
liposomes to zero and the intensity of dequenched fluorophores,
obtained after lysis of the liposomes with Triton X-100 (0.5% v/v,
from Sigma), to 100. The lag time before the onset of leakage was
defined as the time between the addition of BHA or virus and the
intercept of the tangent to the inflection point of the leakage curve
with the time axis (21), as proposed by Bentz (22).
Fusion Measurements--
Fusion between virus and labeled
liposomes was measured with a resonance energy transfer assay (23).
Labeled liposomes, prepared as described above, form a lipid film
containing 0.6 mol % each of N-(lissamine rhodamine B
sulfonyl)-phosphatidylethanolamine (N-Rh-PE) and
N-(7-nitro-2,1,3-benzoxadiazol-4-yl)-phosphatidylethanolamine (N-NBD-PE). Fusion was measured in buffer B at excitation
and emission wavelengths of 465 and 530 nm, respectively, with a 515-nm long pass filter placed between cuvette and emission monochromator (24)
on a Photon Technologies International (South Brunswick, NJ)
fluorometer with continuous stirring in a thermostated cuvette holder.
For calibration of the fluorescence scale, the initial residual
fluorescence intensity was set to zero and the intensity at infinite
probe solution 100%. The latter value was obtained after lysis of the
liposomes with Triton X-100 (0.5% v/v) with correction for the
quenching of NBD by Triton X-100 (23).
Asymmetric Liposome Preparation--
Asymmetrically labeled
liposomes were prepared by adding 20 µl of a freshly made solution of
1 M sodium dithionite, 1 M Tris, pH 10, to 1 µmol of a unilamellar, N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE
containing liposome preparation in 1.4 ml of Tris buffer (1 M, pH 10) at 4 °C. Upon reduction to about 50% of the
N-NBD-PE fluorescence, the liposomes were quickly
transferred to a 1.5- × 23-cm (40 ml) Sephadex G-75 column and eluted
with pH 5.1 buffer B. The void volume containing the asymmetric
liposomes was pooled, and phospholipid concentrations were measured
(20).
Virus--
The X-31 recombinant strain of influenza A virus
(from plaque C-22 (25)) was grown for us by the Schweizerisches Serum
und Impfstoffinstitut (Bern, Switzerland) in the allantoic cavity of
embryonated eggs and purified, handled, and stored essentially as
described before (26). Viral phospholipid was extracted according to
Folch et al. (27) and quantitated as described above
(20).
BHA Preparation--
BHA was prepared as described by Brand and
Skehel (28) with minor modifications as specified by Harter et
al. (29). Briefly, virus was pelleted by centrifugation,
resuspended in 1 ml of buffer containing 100 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, 50 µM Preparation of HA Rosettes--
An aliquot of virus was pelleted
by ultracentrifugation and solubilized in 30 mM
Virosome Preparation--
Virosomes were prepared as described
by Stegmann et al. (31), with minor modifications. Briefly,
an aliquot of virus was pelleted by ultracentrifugation, solubilized in
octaethylene glycol monododecyl ether (C12E8, Fluka) 50 mM,
in buffer A. The viral nucleocapsid and matrix protein were then
removed by ultracentrifugation at 100,000 × g for 35 min at 4 °C. The supernatant containing the solubilized viral
membrane was then either added to a dry lipid film containing
N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE (final concentration in the
reconstituted membrane 0.8 mol % each) or mixed with TMRD-10,000. To
remove the detergent, 100 µl of the mixtures was added to Bio-Beads SM-2 (30 mg) and shaken at 2500 rpm for 1 h at room temperature, after which the supernatant was added to 15 mg of Bio-Beads SM-2 and
shaken at 2500 rpm for 10 min at room temperature. The virosomes were
then purified by molecular sieve chromatography on Sephadex G-200 in
buffer A to eliminate remaining detergent and to separate the
virosome-entrapped from free TMRD-10,000.
Pores Formed by BHA Are Small and Are Open or Continue to Close and
Open for Minutes to Hours--
We have previously shown that the
purified ectodomain of HA, BHA, produces pores in large unilamellar
liposomal membranes at low pH, causing low molecular weight
water-soluble molecules encapsulated in the liposomes to leak out (8).
To estimate the size of these pores, liposomes were produced containing
self-quenching concentrations of calcein (623 Da) or
tetramethylrhodamine coupled to 3,000- or 10,000-Da dextrans
(TMRD-3,000 or TMRD-10,000, respectively). Although BHA readily induced
the leakage of calcein, relief of self-quenching due to the leakage of
neither dextran was found at pH 5.1, 0 °C (at this pH, BHA is not
stable at 37 °C (8)). Therefore, the pores formed by BHA are between
13 Å, the diameter of calcein, and 26 Å, the diameter of TMRD-3,000
(32, 33).
To characterize the lifetime of these pores, we developed an assay that
measured the amount of time for which the interior of the liposomes
remained accessible to membrane-impermeant molecules. For this purpose,
asymmetric liposomes were produced from liposomes symmetrically labeled
with the phospholipid analogues N-NBD-PE and
N-Rh-PE, by dithionite reduction of the NBD moiety present on the outer leaflet of the membrane at pH 10, as described under "Experimental Procedures." Dithionite, a strongly negatively
charged molecule at the pH of the experiment, cannot pass membranes and thus reduces only the N-NBD-PE present in the outer leaflet
to a non-fluorescent product (34). Accordingly, dithionite reduced the
N-NBD-PE fluorescence of symmetric liposomes by about 50%. At this point, further additions of dithionite no longer affected the
fluorescence, indicating the reduction of all of the outer leaflet
N-NBD-PE. The liposomes were then purified away from the dithionite and incubated with BHA at pH 5.1, 0 °C, after which the
pH was adjusted to 9.0 and dithionite added. Entry of dithionite into
the liposomes via the HA-induced pores resulted in a decrease in
fluorescence due to dithionite reduction of the inner leaflet N-NBD-PE (Fig. 1A).
Reduction of N-NBD fluorescence could also result from
transmembrane movement of N-NBD-PE, but neither HA-induced membrane fusion (15) nor HA rosette-induced pore formation (see below)
gave rise to such transmembrane movement, as tested with phospholipase
D from Streptomyces species. This enzyme is a
membrane-impermeant molecule that efficiently removes the fluorescent
head group of N-NBD-PE from the lipid, at 37 °C; the head
group is not fluorescent in an aqueous environment (15). Since the
enzyme is not active at 0 °C, we could not directly test this for
BHA. Furthermore, the effect of dithionite reduction of
N-NBD-PE no longer increased at times beyond 1 h
following the addition of BHA (Fig. 1B, see below), arguing
against the possibility that dithionite reduced fluorescent lipid
translocated to the outside leaflet of the liposomes by BHA, rather
than acting on N-NBD-PE of the inside leaflet. No reduction
of fluorescence was seen when BHA and liposomes were incubated at pH
7.4 before addition of dithionite or if inactivated BHA was added to
liposomes at pH 5.1 (Fig. 1A).
The pores formed by BHA appeared remarkably stable; if dithionite was
added up to 15 min after increasing the pH to 9.0, it still entered the
liposomes (not shown). The accessibility of the liposomes as a function
of time after addition of BHA was quantitated by measuring the initial
rate of the N-NBD-PE reduction. Efficient dithionite entry
could still be detected 2 h after the addition of BHA to liposomes
(Fig. 1, A and B); in fact, the initial rate of
N-NBD-PE reduction was maximal an hour after addition of BHA
(Fig. 1B). It is not likely that at 1 h after addition, BHA present in the solution still forms new pores in the membranes, given that BHA which is not liposome-associated becomes inactivated with a half-time of 10 min (8). Moreover, few new pores were formed at
60 min after addition of BHA, although at this point, calcein-induced
leakage from liposomes was less than 60% (8). Because BHA-induced
calcein leakage is an all or none process (8), 40% of the
calcein-filled liposomes were therefore still available after 1 h.
Therefore, membrane-bound BHA is also much less active at this point,
and yet 2 h after incubation, dithionite still reduced
N-NBD-PE. Together, the above data indicate that the small
pores formed by BHA either remain open a long time or, alternatively,
they continue to open and close.
Viral HA Initially Forms Small Pores and the Onset of Fusion
Coincides with the Formation of Larger Pores--
Shangguan et
al. (7) have already demonstrated the leakage of fluorescent
dextrans across a liposomal membrane during fusion with influenza virus
(strain A/PR/8/34, H1N1 serotype) at pH 5.1, 37 °C, and we confirm
their results for the X-31 strain (H3N2 serotype, Fig.
2A). At this temperature,
fusion is preceded by a short (1-2-s) lag phase, which cannot be
resolved by stirrer mixing techniques (35). At 0 °C, however, fusion
is slowed down and preceded by a lag phase of several minutes following
the low pH-induced conformational change (35) (Fig. 2B). At
this temperature, the leakage of calcein precedes fusion as measured by
lipid mixing (8) (cf. Fig. 2B) and occurs shortly
after the conformational change in HA. To determine at which time point
large pores were formed at 0 °C, the leakage of TMRD-3,000 (Fig.
2B) or TMRD-10,000 (not shown) across the liposomal membrane
was determined. An increase in fluorescence was observed using either
large probe after a lag phase of about 10 min. If fusion of virus with
N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE containing liposomes was
measured under the same circumstances, lipid mixing started after a lag
of about 10 min also (Fig. 2B). Therefore, kinetically, the
dequenching of the fluorescence of large molecules coincided precisely
with the onset of fusion as measured by lipid mixing.
The increase in fluorescence observed for the dextrans could be due
either to transfer of dextrans from the liposomal to the viral interior
through fusion pores during fusion or to leakage. To determine the
amount of leakage versus fusion (Fig.
3), virus was mixed with TMRD-10,000
containing liposomes at a 3:1 virus to liposome ratio at pH 5.1, 37 °C. In a parallel experiment, fusion of virus with liposomes
containing N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE was measured
under the same conditions. Under these circumstances, the increase in
fluorescence using TMRD-10,000 containing liposomes was approximately
80%, and 92% of the liposomes fused with the virus as measured by
lipid mixing. The lipid mixing-based data somewhat overestimate fusion,
as 100% fusion was defined as the calculated fluorescence increase for
complete mixing of the viral and liposomal phospholipids; since viruses
also contain cholesterol and integral membrane proteins, the actual
dilution of the probes upon fusion is slightly higher. We then
separated free TMRD-10,000 from dextran entrapped in liposomes and
fusion products by gel filtration on a Sephadex G-200 column (Fig. 3).
43% of the dextran was found to elute with the void volume of the
column, whereas 53% was in the second peak, indicating that it had
leaked from the liposomes. Upon addition of a detergent to these
fractions, it was found that the dextran included in the void volume
was partially quenched, retaining two-thirds of the original quenching, and thus present in membranes (Fig. 3). Given that 92% of the liposomes participated in fusion, about 40% of the void volume fluorescence was thus from tetramethylrhodamine dextran present in
fusion products, and 3% was present in unfused liposomes. Therefore, the signal observed in Fig. 2B is due to transfer of
dextrans from liposomes to virus by fusion as well as from leakage. By using calcein as a probe, we did not find residual quenched calcein in
fusion products, indicating that small pores permeate the membranes of
fusion products. More extensive dextran leakage was reported by
Shangguan et al. (7) for the A/PR/8/34 strain.
Leakage could occur across the liposomal membrane or through
pre-existing defects in the viral membrane, allowing the dextrans to
leak across this membrane after virus-liposome fusion. However, the
viral membranes used did not appear to be damaged, as precisely the
same kinetics and extent of leakage were observed using freshly prepared virus that had never been frozen, thawed, or pelleted (not
shown). Furthermore, although some spontaneous leakage of dextrans
entrapped in reconstituted viral membranes was observed at pH 5.1, the
kinetics of this leakage were different (see below). Taken together,
these data indicate that dextrans start to flow through pores at the
onset of membrane fusion; these pores appear to be of two types,
"fusion" pores between the viral membrane and the liposomal
membrane, and "leakage" pores formed by HA in the liposomal membrane.
HA Rosettes Give Rise to Large Pores in Liposomal Membranes in the
Absence of Fusion--
In contrast to viral HA, BHA does not contain
the membrane anchor, and the local concentration of BHA on the
liposomal membrane is much lower than that of HA presented by a viral
membrane. To determine if these factors are important for large pore
formation, we solubilized viral membranes with octyl glucoside, and we
purified HA by lectin affinity chromatography as described under
"Experimental Procedures." The octyl glucoside was then removed by
dialysis. The aggregation of the hydrophobic transmembrane domain of HA during dialysis leads to the formation of "HA rosettes," multimers of 6-8 HA trimers (36) with the membrane anchors at the core of the
complex and HA1 on the outside. In contrast to BHA, the rosettes are
stable at 37 °C. Rosettes do not induce fusion (9). Leakage of both
calcein and dextrans across liposomal membranes was found to occur at
37 and 0 °C (Fig. 4, A and
B). HA rosettes induced complete leakage of calcein at
37 °C (Fig. 4A, curve a) after a short lag, whereas
leakage of TMRD-3,000 and -10,000 was observed after a longer lag (Fig.
4A, curves b and c). The final level of leakage
decreased with increasing probe size. At 0 °C, essentially complete
leakage of calcein and somewhat less of TMRD-3,000 occurred after a lag
of about 10 min, whereas leakage of TMRD-10,000 started after a
slightly longer lag and was much less extensive (Fig. 4B).
In conclusion, with multimeric, membrane anchor-containing preparations
of HA, we do see large pore formation.
Large Fusion Pores Form in the Viral Membrane during
Fusion Large Pore Formation Continues after Neutralization during the Lag
Phase, in Contrast to Lipid Mixing--
We have found previously (35)
that if virus-liposome fusion is triggered at pH 5.1, 0 °C, and the
sample is neutralized any time during the lag phase, then fusion does
not ensue. However, the sample remains fusion-competent, and fusion can
be induced by a second acidification. If virus-induced leakage of
TMRD-10,000 across liposomal membranes was arrested at early times (<1
min) during the lag phase by neutralization, leakage did not occur. However, if neutralization took place at later times during the lag
phase, an increase in fluorescence was seen (Fig.
6). The later the samples were
neutralized, the earlier the leakage began (Fig. 6, curve d
versus curve f). Thus, once sufficient fusion peptides have been inserted, large pore formation continues after neutralization, with almost the same kinetics as at low pH. Because lipid mixing does not occur, these large pores must be leakage pores.
In this paper, we show that a variety of HA preparations (BHA, HA
rosettes, and virus) all induce pores of less than 26 Å in diameter in
liposomal membranes at low pH. These pores are long lasting and begin
to open shortly after the low pH-induced conformational change in HA.
HA rosettes and virus also induced the formation of much larger pores
(which we call leakage pores here to distinguish them clearly from all
other pores), allowing the leakage of fluorescent dextrans across the
liposomal membrane, at times well after the conformational change. For
virus and reconstituted viral membranes, the opening of these large
leakage pores was simultaneous with the onset of membrane fusion as
measured by lipid mixing (Figs. 2B and 5), and with the
formation of fusion pores aqueous connections allowing the passage of
dextrans from the liposomal to the viral interior (Fig. 2B)
and vice versa (Fig. 5). Since influenza-induced membrane fusion is
characterized by a very typical sigmoidal time course, the onset of
fusion being preceded by a lag phase of several minutes at 0 °C, and
since molecules of the same size pass through fusion and leakage pores at the same time, these observations suggest that fusion pores and
leakage pores are related structures.
Formation of the target membrane half of the structure was independent
of the presence of a viral membrane, but leakage pores were not formed
in viral membranes at low pH in the absence of target membranes. As
neutralization of virus-liposome complexes during the lag phase before
the onset of fusion arrested lipid mixing (35), but not leakage pore
formation (Fig. 6), it is clear that formation of leakage pores alone
does not suffice to induce fusion. Therefore, these data suggest that
fusion pores may start out as leakage pores in the target membrane,
with the viral membrane still separating the viral and liposomal
interior (Fig. 7).
Formation of Small and Large Leakage Pores--
The small pores
that are formed shortly after the conformational change are clearly the
result of insertion of the fusion peptide into the target membrane,
perturbing the bilayer; with virus >50% of the calcein leaks out
before fusion even starts (Fig. 2B). The structure of this
pore is not clear. Given that they have a defined size and prolonged
lifetimes, it is difficult to imagine that the pores are lipid defects,
given the flexibility and fast diffusion of lipids. Also, as we have
argued before, these are not classical "barrel stave" pores (8).
Other types of peptide-induced pores have a lifetime of milliseconds
(37), or open and close continuously for a long time (38). Although our
measurements do not allow us to distinguish between pores that stay
open or those that close and open for a long time, and flickering
fusion pores induced by influenza hemagglutinin have been described
(39), the small pores that we see are not fusion pores. Therefore, the
small pores that we observe must be of a novel type, unlike a lipid
defect but also different from the known pores induced by peptides.
With virus, the development of small pores was followed by that of
large (leakage and fusion) pores (small and large pores are clearly
resolved at 0 °C, Fig. 2B). Pore enlargement does not
lead to lysis of the membranes, as witnessed by the intact resonance
energy transfer between lipidic probes and the quenching of dextrans in
fusion products (Fig. 3). The increase in fluorescence was more limited
with dextrans than with calcein. Whereas some of this difference may be
due to dextran remaining quenched in fusion products (Fig. 3), the data
obtained with rosettes seem to suggest that large pores developed in
fewer liposomes than small pores (Fig. 4). Rosettes do not induce
fusion pores and give rise to slower and less extensive leakage of
TMRD-10,000 than TMRD-3,000 leakage. TMRD-3,000 leakage is again slower
and less extensive than calcein leakage (Fig. 4). Given a random
distribution of HA trimers over the liposomes, fewer liposomes will
have a large number of bound HAs than a lower amount of bound HA.
Therefore, these data suggest that more HA trimers were required to
form a pore allowing the passage of TMRD-10,000 than a pore allowing the passage of TMRD-3,000, and we know that 1 trimer suffices to allow
the passage of calcein (8). With virus, multiple trimers are presented
to the target membrane together (on the viral membrane), so the
difference between calcein and dextrans is much smaller. Thus, most
likely, pores increase in size gradually by recruiting additional
trimers. Such behavior has been described for HA-induced fusion pore
formation, and large pores are thought to be formed following complex
formation by multiple HA trimers (17, 18, 40, 41), again suggesting
that fusion and leakage pores are related structures. A new element
contributed by our observations is that since large leakage pores would
be formed in a similar way, the target membrane half of the fusion pore
may initially be a leakage pore (Fig. 7c).
BHA does not give rise to large pore formation. These data appear to
suggest that the transmembrane anchor of HA, lacking in BHA, plays a
role in this process. Cells expressing HA mutants that are anchored by
a phosphatidylinositol (GPI-HA) do not induce fusion as measured by the
transfer of aqueous dyes from one cell to the other (14), but the
mutants do induce lipid mixing of outer membrane leaflets (hemifusion).
Therefore, the anchor probably does not have a structural role in
organizing the HA complex giving rise to large pore formation. We
suggest that it may instead be the higher local concentration of HA in
rosettes, viral membranes, or cellular membranes containing
GPI-anchored HA that facilitates large pore formation. Under the
circumstances of the experiments shown in this paper, we have found
that 25 BHA trimers bind per liposome (results not shown). At pH 5.1, 0 °C, 5% of the added BHA is active in pore formation (8). Of
course, this interpretation implies that GPI-HA should induce large
pore formation at low pH; we have tried this experiment but find that,
in our hands, not only GPI-HA but also wild type-HA, at the densities
at which they are expressed on the surface of cells, induce no
significant fusion or hemifusion with liposomes.
Proteinaceous Versus Lipidic Fusion Pores--
Our data would be
quite compatible with the numerous models proposing that fusion is the
result of complex formation by multiple HA molecules in a ring-like
structure (35, 40, 42-44), assuming that the small pores correspond to
the action of individual HA trimers before complex formation (Fig.
7a) and that the large pores are caused by the complex. Two
completely different pathways have been proposed to lead from HA
complex formation to fusion as follows: complexes could either be
proteinaceous fusion pores, whose lateral expansion would break the
ring and lead to lipid merger (reviewed in (17)), or they could induce
the formation of a lipidic connection between the two membranes, which
would then break through to form a fusion pore lined by lipids (11, 18,
35).
All the data reported in this paper are compatible with a proteinaceous
nature of the fusion pore. Evidence for proteinaceous pores was
provided by experiments showing that an aqueous connection forms
between cells expressing HA and other cells at low pH, before lipid
merger can be detected (16, 18, 41, 45). However, strong experimental
evidence for the formation of lipidic intermediates in
hemagglutinin-mediated fusion is also available (14, 15, 18, 46). This
evidence is mostly interpreted in terms of one of the versions of the
stalk theory for fusion (11, 47). In theory, an unspecified initial
membrane perturbation at the site of fusion first leads to fusion of
the outer leaflets of the two membranes. In one version, lateral
expansion of this stalk connecting the membranes gives rise to a
special bilayer, the "hemifusion diaphragm," and breakthrough of
this diaphragm would finally lead to fusion of the inner leaflets also
(48). No leakage would be expected to occur at any stage during fusion
involving stalk intermediates.
The more recent observations of Chernomordik et al. (18)
appeared to reconcile the proteinaceous and the lipidic fusion pathways. Following an earlier suggestion (14), they showed that
limited outer leaflet fusion occurs before fusion pore formation but
that the lipids cannot spread beyond the area of this initial defect,
because of steric constraints imposed by the presence of the complex of
HA molecules. Expansion of the complex would allow lipid mixing. These
data are compatible with both the observed aqueous fusion pore opening
before the onset of extensive lipid mixing and the existence of lipidic
intermediates (16, 18, 41, 45).
We think that there is sufficient evidence for the involvement of
lipidic intermediates, involving a hemifusion diaphragm, in fusion, but
neither the stalk theory nor this recent model sufficiently take into
account the leakage of large molecules during fusion as observed by us
and others (7). We therefore propose a different model for fusion (Fig.
7). Initially, small stable pores resulting from insertion of the
fusion peptide form anywhere in the target membrane (Fig.
7a). HA complex formation, involving a pH-independent, viral
membrane-independ-ent, interaction between HA trimers, then leads
to the formation of larger leakage pores in the membrane (Fig.
7b). This process takes several minutes at low temperature.
With HA present in the horizontal position as shown in Fig. 7,
consistent with recent models of fusogenic HA structure and alternative
models (35, 49), as well as indications that HA may tilt with respect
to the membrane normal during fusion (50, 51), viral and target
membranes remain separated. However, lateral expansion of the pore and
thermal motion of the viral membrane would bring the viral membrane
into contact with the edges of the leakage pores after some time. We
propose that if leakage pores come into contact with the viral
membrane, they can initiate fusion. The edge of the expanding pore,
which is probably at least partially (and increasingly) hydrophobic,
would attack the viral membrane (Fig. 7c), leading to fusion
of the outer leaflet of the target membrane with the outer leaflet of the viral membrane, producing a hemifusion diaphragm. The latter step
is not different from that figuring in other lipidic fusion models
(18), although stalk formation would not seem necessary; hemifusion
diaphragms could be formed directly if the pore is sufficiently large.
From then on, fusion would proceed as previously suggested in the stalk
model (not shown).
Future experiments will have to establish why breakthrough of the viral
monolayer requires a wild type-HA anchor, only occurs at low pH even
after the conformational change in HA, and in the presence of a target
membrane as observed. The crucial difference between our present fusion
model and previous models is the presence of a largely proteinaceous
pore in the target membrane, providing a falsifiable hypothesis for the
type of membrane perturbation that would lead to lipid mixing and
explaining the leakage we and others (7) observe during fusion.
We thank Justin Teissié for support and
critical comments.
*
This research was supported by the Région
Midi-Pyrénées, the Fondation pour la Recherche
Médicale, the Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer, and
the Comité Scientifique SIDACTION of the Fondation pour la
Recherche Médicale.The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
The abbreviations used are:
HA, hemagglutinin;
BHA, bromelain released ectodomain of influenza hemagglutinin;
MES, 2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid;
N-Rh-PE, N-(lissamine rhodamine B sulfonyl)phosphatidylethanolamine;
N-NBD-PE, N-(7-nitro-2,1,3-benzoxadiazol-4-yl)phosphatidylethanolamine;
TMRD, tetramethylrhodamine dextran;
GPI, glycosylphosphatidylinositol.
Membrane Perturbation and Fusion Pore Formation in Influenza
Hemagglutinin-mediated Membrane Fusion
A NEW MODEL FOR FUSION*
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-mercaptoethanol, pH 8.0, and digested with 10 mg/ml bromelain (Calbiochem) at 37 °C for
20 h. Subsequently, virus was removed by centrifugation, and BHA
was purified from the supernatant by molecular sieve chromatography on
Sephadex G-75 in buffer A. As assessed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis the protein was more than 95% pure. Protein concentrations were determined according to Bradford (30) using the
Bio-Rad protein assay (Bio-Rad), using bovine serum albumin as reference.
-D-octyl glucoside (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) in
buffer A for 20 min at 0 °C. The viral nucleocapsid and matrix protein were removed by centrifugation at 100,000 × g
for 35 min at 4 °C. The supernatant containing the solubilized viral
membrane was then passed over an affinity chromatography column
containing Ricinis communis lectin coupled to Sepharose
beads (Sigma), and the column was washed with 5 volumes of buffer A
containing 30 mM
-D-octyl glucoside to
remove the viral lipids. HA was eluted with 0.2 M
D(+) galactose, 30 mM
-D-octyl
glucoside in buffer A; the fractions containing HA were pooled, and the
detergent was removed by dialysis against 1000 volumes of buffer A for
24 h at 4 °C, with 3 changes of buffer. Protein concentrations
were measured according to Bradford (30), and the purity of the
preparation was checked by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. No
proteins other than HA were detected on gel.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Reduction of the inner leaflet fluorescence
of liposomes by dithionite entering through BHA-induced pores at pH
5.1, 0 °C. A, inactivated BHA (curve a)
or BHA (curves b and c) was added to
asymmetrically labeled liposomes at pH 5.1, 0 °C, and incubated for
30 min (curve a), 2 min (curve b), or 1 h
(curve c), after which the mixture was brought to pH 9.0 with Tris and dithionite added. BHA was inactivated by a treatment at
pH 5.1, 37 °C, for 15 min in the absence of membranes (the small
decrease shown for inactivated BHA was also seen after dithionite
addition in the absence of BHA, not shown). B, initial rates
of N-NBD-PE fluorescence decrease after addition of
dithionite as a function of liposome-BHA incubation time at pH 5.1, 0 °C. Averages of two data sets with different BHA and liposome
preparations, ± S.D. are shown. If no error bars are shown, they are
smaller than the drawn data point. Initial rates were determined from
the earliest part of the slopes of curves, immediately after the
addition of dithionite, such as those shown in A. 100%
fluorescence corresponds to the value measured after addition of Tris
and before dithionite addition. The apparent decrease after 1 h is
not statistically significant (Student's t test,
p > 0.05). Final concentration of 25 nM
BHA, 5 µM liposomes (lipid phosphate). The liposomes were
0.1 µm in diameter, composed of egg phosphatidylcholine, egg
phosphatidylethanolamine, and gangliosides at a 6:3:1 molar ratio, and
0.6 mol % each of N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE. They
were made asymmetric by addition of 20-µl aliquots of a freshly made
solution of 1 M sodium dithionite, in 1 M Tris,
pH 10, to 1 µmol (lipid phosphate) of liposomes, until a 49%
decrease in fluorescence was reached and then purified away from the
dithionite by gel filtration.

View larger version (27K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Influenza virus induces the leakage of small
and large molecular weight fluorescent probes; leakage of
large probes coincides with fusion. A, leakage at pH
5.1, 37 °C. B, fusion and leakage at pH 5.1, 0 °C;
inset shows the first 30 min, enlarged. Liposomes containing
calcein (curve a) or TMRD-3,000 (curve b) were
incubated with virus, and dequenching of the fluorescent probes due to
leakage was measured. 100% fluorescence corresponds to the
fluorescence after lysis of the liposomes with Triton X-100 (0.5%
v/v). Fusion (curve c, right axis) between virus and labeled
liposomes containing N-NBD-PE and N-Rh-PE was
measured with a resonance energy transfer assay as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Virus and liposome concentrations were 5 µM (lipid phosphate). Liposomes were 400 nm in diameter,
for maximal dextran encapsulation efficiency.

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Transfer of TMRD-10,000 from the liposomal to
the viral interior versus leakage. Products of fusion between
liposomes containing TMRD-10,000 and virus at pH 5.1, 37 °C, were
separated on a Sephadex G-200 column. The peak on the
left corresponds to the dextran eluted with the void volume
and the broad peak on the right to free dextran leaked from
liposomes. Fluorescence, bold line; fluorescence after
addition of Triton X-100 (0.5% v/v), thin line. Liposomes
were 400 nm in diameter. Final concentrations were 16.5 µM for liposomes and 50 µM for virus (lipid
phosphate). Notice that the peak on the left
contains fluorescent material that is quenched (difference before/after
Triton).

View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
HA rosettes induce the leakage of small and
large molecular weight fluorescent probes.
A, 37 °C; B, 0 °C. Liposomes containing
calcein (curve a), TMRD-3,000 (curve b), or
TMRD-10,000 (curve c) were incubated with HA rosettes at pH
5.1 (curves a-c) or 7.4 (curve d), and
dequenching of the fluorescent probes due to leakage was measured.
100% fluorescence corresponds to the fluorescence after lysis of the
liposomes with Triton X-100 (0.5% v/v). Liposome concentration was 5 µM (lipid phosphate), and HA rosette concentration was 25 nM. Liposomes were 400 nm in diameter.
The above data indicate that the formation of large pores
in the liposomal membrane mediated by HA was in itself independent of the presence of a viral membrane. However, leakage pore formation coincided kinetically with what appeared to be fusion pore formation, allowing the passage of dextrans from the liposomal to the viral interior (Fig. 3), suggesting that large leakage pores and fusion pores
are related structures. However, in contrast to leakage pores, fusion
pores would necessarily also permeate the viral membrane. To determine
whether large pores would also form in the viral membrane during
fusion, viral membranes were solubilized with
C12E8 (octaethylene glycol dodecyl ether),
purified, and reconstituted in the presence of TMRD-10,000 by detergent
removal as described under "Experimental Procedures." If these
reconstituted viral membranes ("virosomes") were incubated in the
presence of target membranes at pH 5.1, 0 °C (Fig.
5, curve a), leakage of dextrans across the viral membrane was observed after a lag phase of
about 10 min, or about the same lag that was found to precede fusion
between virosomes and liposomes as measured by lipid mixing under the
same conditions (Fig. 5, curve b). In the absence of target
membranes at pH 5.1, 0 °C, or pH 7.4, 0 °C, some leakage was also
observed. However, the pH dependence of this leakage process was
shallow compared with HA-induced leakage and not preceded by a lag
phase (Fig. 5, curves a and c), indicating that
this was background leakage, probably caused by the presence of
residual detergent in the virosomal membranes (35). These data indicate that, if target membranes were present, large pores were formed at low
pH in the viral membrane.

View larger version (29K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Large pores are formed in the viral membrane
during fusion at pH 5.1, 0 °C. Virosomes containing TRMD-10,000
were incubated with liposomes at pH 5.1, 0 °C (curve a),
or pH 7.4, 0 °C (curve d), or in the absence of target
membrane at pH 5.1, 0 °C (curve c). Fusion of unlabeled
virosomes with labeled liposomes pH 5.1, 0 °C (curve b).
Virosome concentration was 5 µM, liposomes 100 µM (lipid phosphate). Liposomes were 400 nm in
diameter.

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Large pores develop even after
neutralization. Virus was added to TMRD-10,000 containing
liposomes at pH 5.1, 0 °C. Samples kept at pH 5.1 (curve
a) or neutralized after 30 s (curve b), 2 min
(curve c), 4 min (curve d), 8 min (curve
e), and 10 min (curve f). Virus and liposome
concentrations were 5 µM (lipid phosphate). Liposomes
were 400 nm in diameter. Arrows denote neutralization.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (45K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
A new model for HA-induced membrane
fusion. Initially, the insertion of the fusion peptide at random
sites in the target membrane leads to the formation of small stable
pores (a) and the leakage of molecules like calcein
(small arrows). Interactions between HA trimers, not
necessarily taking place in the viral membrane, lead to the formation
of large complexes of HA, inducing larger pores in the target membrane
(b). These pores, which allow dextrans to leak out of the
liposomes (large arrow), continue to form after
neutralization. After they reach a critical size, aided by the
flexibility of the viral membrane, contact between the edge of the pore
and the viral membrane perturbs the latter (c). We do not
know if some lipids from the viral outer leaflet really pass into the
target membrane inner leaflet, as suggested by the cartoon. As the pore
continues to expand, this leads to limited outer leaflet fusion, the
formation of a hemifusion diaphragm, and later to complete fusion (not
shown). Complete fusion requires a pH and target
membrane-dependent interaction between the membrane anchors
of the viral HA. HA and lipids are drawn approximately to scale; the
pore may be wider.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
![]()
FOOTNOTES
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: 33 5 61 17 54 63; Fax: 33 5 61 17 59 94; E-mail: stegmann@ipbs.fr.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Hernandez, L. D.,
Hoffman, L. R.,
Wolfsberg, T. G.,
and White, J. M.
(1996)
Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
12,
627-661[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Hughson, F. M.
(1995)
Curr. Biol.
5,
265-274[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
3.
Wilson, I. A.,
Skehel, J. J.,
and Wiley, D. C.
(1981)
Nature
289,
366-375[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Bullough, P. A.,
Hughson, F. M.,
Skehel, J. J.,
and Wiley, D. C.
(1994)
Nature
371,
37-43[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Stegmann, T.,
Delfino, J. M.,
Richards, F. M.,
and Helenius, A.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
18404-18410 6.
Tsurudome, M.,
Glück, R.,
Graf, R.,
Falchetto, R.,
Schaller, U.,
and Brunner, J.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
20225-20232 7.
Shangguan, T.,
Alford, D.,
and Bentz, J.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
4956-4965[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Jiricek, R.,
Schwarz, G.,
and Stegmann, T.
(1997)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1330,
17-28[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Günther-Ausborn, S.,
Praetor, A.,
and Stegmann, T.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
29279-29285 10.
Stegmann, T.,
and Helenius, A.
(1993)
in
Viral Fusion Mechanisms
(Bentz, J., ed)
, pp. 89-111, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
11.
Siegel, D. P.
(1993b)
in
Viral Fusion Mechanisms
(Bentz, J., ed)
, pp. 475-512, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
12.
Siegel, D. P.
(1993)
Biophys. J.
65,
2124-2140 13.
Chernomordik, L. V.,
Vogel, S. S.,
Sokoloff, A.,
Onaran, H. O.,
Leikina, E. A.,
and Zimmerberg, J.
(1993)
FEBS Lett.
318,
71-76[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Kemble, G. W.,
Danieli, T.,
and White, J. M.
(1994)
Cell
76,
383-391[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
15.
Klotz, K.-H.,
Bartoldus, I.,
and Stegmann, T.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
2383-2386 16.
Tse, F. W.,
Iwata, A.,
and Almers, W.
(1993)
J. Cell Biol.
121,
543-552 17.
Lindau, M.,
and Almers, W.
(1995)
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
7,
509-517[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
18.
Chernomordik, L. V.,
Leikina, E.,
Frolov, V.,
Bronk, P.,
and Zimmerberg, J.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
140,
1369-1382 19.
Mayer, L. D.,
Hope, M. J.,
and Cullis, P. R.
(1986)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
858,
161-168[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Böttcher, C. J. F.,
Van Gent, C. M.,
and Fries, C.
(1961)
Anal. Chim. Acta
24,
203-204[CrossRef]
21.
Stegmann, T.,
Bartoldus, I.,
and Zumbrunn, J.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
1825-1832[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Bentz, J.
(1992)
Biophys. J.
63,
448-459 23.
Struck, D. K.,
Hoekstra, D.,
and Pagano, R. E.
(1981)
Biochemistry
20,
4093-4099[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
24.
Stegmann, T.,
Hoekstra, D.,
Scherphof, G.,
and Wilschut, J.
(1985)
Biochemistry
24,
3107-3113[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
Doms, R. W.,
Gething, M. J.,
Henneberry, J.,
White, J.,
and Helenius, A.
(1986)
J. Virol.
57,
603-613 26.
Nebel, S.,
Bartoldus, I.,
and Stegmann, T.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
5705-5711[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Folch, J.,
Lees, M.,
and Sloane-Stanley, G. H.
(1957)
J. Biol. Chem.
226,
497-509 28.
Brand, C. M.,
and Skehel, J. J.
(1972)
Nat. New Biol.
238,
145-147[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
29.
Harter, C.,
Bächi, T.,
Semenza, B.,
and Brunner, J.
(1988)
Biochemistry
27,
1856-1864[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
30.
Bradford, M. M.
(1976)
Anal. Biochem.
72,
248-254[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
31.
Stegmann, T.,
Morselt, H. W.,
Booy, F. P.,
van Breemen, J. F.,
Scherphof, G.,
and Wilschut, J.
(1987)
EMBO J.
6,
2651-2659[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
32.
Matsuzaki, K.,
Yoneyame, S.,
and Miyajima, K.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
73,
831-838 33.
Nicholson, C.,
and Tao, L.
(1993)
Biophys. J.
65,
2277-2290 34.
McIntyre, J. C.,
and Sleight, R. G.
(1991)
Biochemistry
30,
11819-11827[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
35.
Stegmann, T.,
White, J. M.,
and Helenius, A.
(1990)
EMBO J.
9,
4231-4241[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
36.
Ruigrok, R. W.,
Wrigley, N. G.,
Calder, L. J.,
Cusack, S.,
Wharton, S. A.,
Brown, E. B.,
and Skehel, J. J.
(1986)
EMBO J.
5,
41-49[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
37.
Rex, S.,
and Schwarz, G.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
2336-2345[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
38.
Matsuzaki, K.,
Murase, O.,
Fuji, N.,
and Miyajima, K.
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
12553-12559[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
39.
Spruce, A. E.,
Iwata, A.,
and Almers, W.
(1991)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
88,
3623-3627 40.
Bentz, J.,
Ellens, H.,
and Alford, D.
(1990)
FEBS Lett.
276,
1-5[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
41.
Blumenthal, R.,
Sarkar, D.,
Durell, S.,
Howard, D. E.,
and Morris, S. E.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
135,
63-71 42.
Blumenthal, R.,
Schoch, C.,
Puri, A.,
and Clague, M. J.
(1991)
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
635,
285-296[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
43.
Danieli, T.,
Pelletier, S. L.,
Henis, Y. I.,
and White, J. M.
(1996)
J. Cell Biol.
133,
559-569 44.
Doms, R. W.,
and Helenius, A.
(1986)
J. Virol.
60,
833-839 45.
Zimmerberg, J.,
Blumenthal, R.,
Sarkar, D. P.,
Curran, M.,
and Morris, S. J.
(1994)
J. Cell Biol.
127,
1885-1894 46.
Chernomordik, L. V.,
and Zimmerberg, J.
(1995)
Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.
5,
541-547[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
47.
Chernomordik, L. V.,
Leikina, E.,
Kozlov, M. M.,
Frolov, V.,
and Zimmerberg, J.
(1999)
Mol. Membr. Biol.
16,
33-42[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
48.
Chernomordik, L. V.,
Kozlov, M. M.,
Melikyan, G. B.,
Abidor, I. G.,
Markin, V. S.,
and Chizmadzhev, Y. A.
(1985)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
812,
643-655[CrossRef]
49.
Skehel, J. J.,
and Wiley, D. C.
(1998)
Cell
95,
871-874[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
50.
Gray, C.,
and Tamm, L. K.
(1998)
Protein Sci.
7,
2359-2373[Abstract]
51.
Tatulian, S. A.,
Hinterdorfer, P.,
Baber, G.,
and Tamm, L. K.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
5514-5523[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. I. Iliev, J. R. Djannatian, R. Nau, T. J. Mitchell, and F. S. Wouters Cholesterol-dependent actin remodeling via RhoA and Rac1 activation by the Streptococcus pneumoniae toxin pneumolysin PNAS, February 20, 2007; 104(8): 2897 - 2902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Kobayashi, M. C. Bennett, T. Bercot, and I. R. Singh Functional Analysis of Hepatitis C Virus Envelope Proteins, Using a Cell-Cell Fusion Assay J. Virol., February 15, 2006; 80(4): 1817 - 1825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Kim, T.-J. Jeon, A. Oberai, D. Yang, J. J. Schmidt, and J. U. Bowie Transmembrane glycine zippers: Physiological and pathological roles in membrane proteins PNAS, October 4, 2005; 102(40): 14278 - 14283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||