Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M202063200 on March 5, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 20, 17476-17485, May 17, 2002
Exploring the Stereochemistry of CXCR4-Peptide Recognition and
Inhibiting HIV-1 Entry with D-Peptides Derived from
Chemokines*
Naiming
Zhou
§,
Zhaowen
Luo
§,
Jiansong
Luo
§,
Xuejun
Fan
§,
Mark
Cayabyab¶,
Megumi
Hiraoka
,
Dongxiang
Liu
**,
Xiaobing
Han
,
James
Pesavento**,
Chang-Zhi
Dong**,
Youli
Wang**,
Jing
An**,
Hideko
Kaji
,
Joseph G.
Sodroski¶, and
Ziwei
Huang
**
From the
Kimmel Cancer Center and the
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Jefferson
Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107, the ¶ Department of Cancer Immunology and
AIDS, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School and
Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard School of
Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, and the
** Department of Biochemistry, School of Molecular and
Cellular Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Received for publication, March 1, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
Chemokine receptor CXCR4 plays an
important role in the immune system and the cellular entry of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). To probe the stereospecificity
of the CXCR4-ligand interface, D-amino acid peptides
derived from natural chemokines, viral macrophage inflammatory protein
II (vMIP-II) and stromal cell-derived factor-1
(SDF-1
), were
synthesized and found to compete with 125I-SDF-1
and
monoclonal antibody 12G5 binding to CXCR4 with potency and selectivity
comparable with or higher than their L-peptide counterparts. This was surprising because of the profoundly different side chain topologies between D- and
L-enantiomers, which circular dichroism spectroscopy showed
adopt mirror image conformations. Further direct binding experiments
using D-peptide labeled with fluorescein (designated as
FAM-DV1) demonstrated that D- and L-peptides shared similar or at least overlapping binding site(s) on the CXCR4
receptor. Structure-activity analyses of related peptide analogs of
mixed chiralities or containing alanine replacements revealed specific
residues at the N-terminal half of the peptides as key binding
determinants. Acting as CXCR4 antagonists and with much higher
biological stability than L-counterparts, the
D-peptides showed significant activity in inhibiting the
replication of CXCR4-dependent HIV-1 strains. These results
show the remarkable stereochemical flexibility of the CXCR4-peptide
interface. Further studies to understand the mechanism of this unusual
feature of the CXCR4 binding surface might aid the development
of novel CXCR4-binding molecules like the D-peptides that
have high affinity and stability.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is critical for many
biological functions, such as B-cell lymphopoiesis, regulation of
neuronal cell migration, and vascular development (1-3). In addition, CXCR4 together with another chemokine receptor CCR5 are two principal co-receptors for the cellular entry of the human immunodeficiency virus
type 1 (HIV-1)1 (4-7). The
stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1
) is the only known natural
ligand of CXCR4 and plays important roles in migration, proliferation,
and differentiation of leukocytes (8, 9). The viral macrophage
inflammatory protein II (vMIP-II) encoded by human herpesvirus 8 (10)
is an antagonistic chemokine ligand of CXCR4 (11, 12). vMIP-II also
interacts with other chemokine receptors such as CCR5 and CCR3 and
inhibits HIV-1 entry mediated by these co-receptors.
CXCR4 and other chemokine receptors belong to the superfamily of seven
transmembrane G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) (13). These membrane
proteins transmit signals from extracellular ligands to intracellular
biological pathways via heterotrimeric G-proteins and have been a major
class of therapeutic targets for a wide variety of human diseases (14).
As such, characterizing the mechanism of biological recognition between
these receptors and their ligands is essential for understanding the
physiological or pathological processes that they mediate and devising
novel strategies for clinical intervention. For CXCR4, studies have been carried out by a number of laboratories using chimeric chemokine receptors and site-specific mutants to study multiple domains of CXCR4
that are important for interacting with chemokine ligands and HIV-1
(15-23). However, because there is no high resolution crystal
structure available for CXCR4 (or any other chemokine receptor) alone
or complexed with ligands, the structural and biochemical basis of
ligand binding and signaling through these important membrane receptors
remains poorly understood.
To further define the structure-function relationship of the chemokine
receptor-ligand interaction, theoretical computer modeling and
site-directed mutagenesis were combined to predict plausible structural
models for chemokine receptors and their complexes with ligands, such
as interleukin-8 receptor
(24) and CCR5 (25, 26). Structural models
of CXCR4 and its complex with ligands were also proposed (27, 28).
Complementary to modeling and mutational analyses of the receptors,
chemical synthetic approach was used to dissect the structural and
functional determinants of a number of chemokines and their binding to
receptors (29). As to chemokines SDF-1
and vMIP-II, which recognize
CXCR4, a large number of synthetic mutants and peptide analogs of
SDF-1
were used to analyze the structure-activity relationship of
different regions of SDF-1
in CXCR4 binding (30-34).
For vMIP-II, we recently found that a synthetic 21-residue peptide
derived from the N terminus of vMIP-II, designated as V1, is a potent
antagonist of CXCR4 and inhibits HIV-1 replication in
CXCR4+ T-cell lines (35, 36). Being highly amenable to
chemical synthesis and modification, this V1 peptide prompted us to use chemically modified analogs of V1 as probes to study the molecular recognition of CXCR4-ligand complex. Because one important aspect of
receptor-ligand interaction is the requirement of stereospecificity, we
report here the synthesis and structure-function characterization of
all-D-amino acid analogs of V1 peptide, designated DV1
peptides. Unexpectedly, these D-peptides display strong
binding and antagonistic activity toward CXCR4, thus revealing that the
peptide binding site on CXCR4 is tolerant of changes in chirality of
ligands. Similar observations are also made for other
D-peptides derived from the N terminus of SDF-1
. These
findings have important implications for understanding the mechanism of
CXCR4-ligand interaction and designing novel inhibitory molecules.
Furthermore, DV1 peptides are highly resistant to proteolytic
degradation and show significant activity in blocking HIV-1 replication
in CXCR4+ cell lines, thus demonstrating their advantage
over natural L-peptides for potential clinical application.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Materials--
Recombinant human chemokines SDF-1
,
MIP-1
, and vMIP-II (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN) were lyophilized
and dissolved as 1 or 2.5 µg/µl stock solutions in sterile
phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and stored at
20 °C in aliquots.
The radioiodinated MIP-1
and SDF-1
were purchased from
PerkinElmer Life Sciences. The specific activity of
125I-MIP-1
and 125I-SDF-1
was 2200 Ci/mmol. Cell culture media and G418 were purchased from
Invitrogen. The anti-CXCR4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) 12G5 (37)
was purchased from BD PharMingen (San Diego, CA). 293 cells (gift from
Dr. R. Doms, University of Pennsylvania) and Sup-T1 cells (provided by
the National Institutes of Health AIDS Reagent Program) were maintained
in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium plus 10% fetal bovine serum.
The cell lines used for the HIV-1 replication assay were kindly
provided by other laboratories: MT-4 cells by Dr. N. Yamamoto (Tokyo
Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan), chronically
HIV-1-infected H9 cells (H9/IIIB) by the National
Institutes of Health AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program, and
Sup-T1 cells by Dr. J. Hoxie (University of Pennsylvania). These cells
were grown in 25 mM HEPES-buffered RPMI 1640 supplemented
with 10% fetal bovine serum, 50 units/ml penicillin, 50 µg/ml
streptomycin, and 0.125 µg/ml amphotericin B. HIV-1 was prepared from
a culture supernatant of H9/IIIB cells.
Peptide Synthesis--
The peptides were prepared by solid phase
synthesis using N-(9-fluorenyl)methoxycarbonyl (Fmoc)
strategy on a 430A peptide synthesizer (Applied Biosystems, Foster
City, CA) and a 9050 Pepsynthesizer Plus (Perseptive Biosystems,
Cambridge, MA), as described previously (38, 39). The side chain
protecting groups of N
-Fmoc amino acids were:
Arg, 2,2,5,7,8-pentamethyl-chroman-6-sulfonyl; Asp,
tert-butyl ester; Cys, trityl; Gln, trityl; His, trityl; Lys, tert-butyloxycarbonyl; Ser, tert-butyl
ester, Tyr, tert-butyl ester; and Trp,
tert-butyloxycarbonyl. In every coupling reaction step, a
4-fold excess of N
-Fmoc amino acid,
O-benzotriazol-1-yl-N,N,N',N'-tetramethyluronium hexa- fluorophosphate, and 1-hydroxybenzotriazole, and 10-fold excess of diisopropylethylamine were used. The cleavage of peptides from the resin was carried out with the cleavage reagent
(trifluoroacetic acid/thioanisole/phenol/water/ethanedithiol/triisopropylsilane, 81.5:5:5:5:2.5:1) for 2 h at room temperature with gentle
stirring. Crude peptides were precipitated in ice-cold
methyl-t-butyl ether, centrifuged, and lyophilized. The
crude peptides were then purified by preparative HPLC using a Dynamax
300-Å C18 column (25 cm × 21.4 mm, inner diameter)
with two solvent systems of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid/H2O
and 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid/acetonitrile. Fractions containing the
appropriate peptide were pooled together and lyophilized. The purity of
the final product was assessed by analytical reverse phase high
performance liquid chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, and
matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass
spectrometry. All peptides were at least 95% pure.
To prepare FAM-DV1, a DV1 peptide labeled with fluorescein (coupled to
the NH2 group of the side chain of K-17 of DV1 sequence), the K-17 side chain was protected with
(4,4-dimethyl-2,6-dioxocyclohex-1-ylidene)ethyl and the N-terminal
leucine was N-protected with
tert-butyloxycarbonyl. The
(4,4-dimethyl-2,6-dioxocyclohex-1-ylidene)ethyl group was removed at
the end of the synthesis from the DV1 peptide-resin utilizing 2%
hydrazine in DMF (3 min at room temperature, three times). The resin
was then washed with DMF and treated at room temperature with
5-carboxylfluorescein (2.5 eq),
2-(1H-benzotriazole-1-yl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethylaronium hexafluorophosphate (HBTU) (2.5 eq), N-hydroxybenzotriazole
(HOBt) (2.5 eq), and diisopropylethylamine (DIEA) (5 eq) in DMF
(minimum to cover the resin) overnight. When necessary, the coupling
was repeated to obtain a negative Kaiser test. The resin was finally washed with DMF and dichloromethane, cleaved and purified as described above.
CD Spectroscopy--
The experiments were performed following
our previously published procedure (24, 40). 50 µM
solutions of peptides were prepared in 0.01 M sodium
phosphate buffer. The spectra were recorded on an Aviv 62A DS
spectrometer (Aviv Instruments Inc., Lakewood, NJ) with a 0.01-cm path
length quartz cuvette and scanned by every 2 nm at room temperature.
Flow Cytometry--
Following the procedure described in our
recent publication (35), Sup T1 cells (2 × 105) were
incubated with an anti-CXCR4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) 12G5 (10 µg/ml) and various concentrations of peptides for 40 min at 4 °C,
then with fluorescein isothiocyanate-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG
(Southern Biotechnology Associates, Inc., Birmingham, AL) for 40 min at
4 °C. Finally the cells were fixed in 2% paraformaldehyde in PBS
and analyzed on a FACScan flow cytometer (Coulter Epics Elite, Beckman
Coulter, Hialeah, FL).
12G5 Competitive Binding to CXCR4--
Sup-T1 cells were
incubated with anti-CXCR4 mAb 12G5 (10 µg/ml) in the presence of
different concentrations of the peptide at 4 °C for 40 min. The
cells were washed twice with the binding buffer and stained with
fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled secondary antibody at 4 °C for
another 40 min. Finally, the cells were washed two to three times and
fixed with the fixing buffer. As a negative control, cells were stained
only with secondary antibody. The final data points were taken as the
mean fluorescence intensity of the peptide sample subtracted by that of
the control. The IC50 values of the peptides in competing
with 12G5 binding to CXCR4 were calculated by using Prizm software.
125I-SDF-1
Competitive Binding to
CXCR4--
CEM-T4 cells were harvested and washed twice with PBS.
Competition binding experiments were performed using a single
concentration (0.2 nM) of 125I-SDF-1
in the
presence of increasing concentrations of unlabeled ligands in a final
volume of 100 µl of binding buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 1 mM CaCl2, 5 mM MgCl2,
0.1% bovine serum albumin) containing 2 × 105 cells.
Nonspecific binding was determined by the addition of 100 nM unlabeled SDF-1
. Samples were incubated for 60 min at room temperature. The incubation was terminated by separating the cells
from the binding buffer by centrifugation and washing once with 500 µl of cold binding buffer. Bound ligands were quantitated by counting
emissions.
125I-MIP-1
Competitive Binding to
CCR5--
Following an experimental procedure similar to that
described above, 293 cells transfected with CCR5 and
125I-MIP-1
were used to determine the specific binding
activity of peptides to CCR5.
FAM-DV1 Competitive Binding to CXCR4--
Sup-T1 cells were
washed twice with PBS (Ca2+- and Mg2+-free).
Ligand binding experiments were preformed using FAM-DV1 (200 nM) with SDF-1
(300 nM), DV1 (100 µM), or V1 (100 µM) in a final volume of 50 µl of binding buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 7.4, 1 mM CaCl2, 5 mM MgCl2,
0.1% bovine serum albumin) containing 2 × 106 cells.
Samples were incubated for 30 min at room temperature in the dark,
followed by resuspension and another 30-min incubation. The incubation
was terminated by separating the cells from the binding buffer by
centrifugation and washing twice with 200 µl of cold binding buffer.
After the final wash, 100 µl of binding buffer was added, and the
cells were spun down for fluorescent analysis. Bound ligands were
determined by counting fluorescent emission at 535 nm wavelength with a
1-s time delay (Wallac Victor2 1420). At least three
independent experiments were performed. Nonspecific binding of FAM-DV1
was determined by the addition of 100 µM DV1 (500-fold in
excess of 200 nM FAM-DV1 used). The fluorescence with 200 nM of FAM-DV1 only was scaled to yield 100% FAM-DV1 bound.
Similarly, the fluorescence of each sample was adjusted to calculate
the percentage of FAM-DV1 bound.
Intracellular Calcium Measurement--
Sup T1 cells and CCR5
transfected 293 cells were used to measure the intracellular calcium
influx. [Ca2+]i was measured using
excitation at 340 and 380 nm on a fluorescence spectrometer
(PerkinElmer LS50). Calibration was performed using 0.033% Triton
X-100 for total fluorophore release and 1.66 mM EGTA to
chelate free Ca2+. Intracellular Ca2+
concentrations were calculated by using the fluorescence spectrometer measurement program.
Stability of Peptides in Human Serum--
Pure human serum
(kindly provided by Robert Korngold, Thomas Jefferson University,
Philadelphia, PA) was diluted with PBS to 80% serum solution. DV1 and
V1 peptides were dissolved in the serum solution with a concentration
of 10 mM. Samples were collected at different time points
of incubation at room temperature and subjected to HPLC analysis with
the injection of 10-µl peptide samples (Microsorb-MV C18
5-µm, 25 cm × 4.6 mm, 80% CH3CN with 0.1%
trifluoroacetic acid, UV 220 nm, 1 ml/min). The stability of the
peptides was calculated based on the changes in the intensity of UV
absorbance of the peptides.
Virus Neutralization Assay--
Recombinant viruses were
generated by cotransfecting the human 293 T cell line with pSVIIIenv
plasmids expressing either HXBc2 or 89.6 envelope glycoproteins and
pHXBH10
envCAT (41). Recombinant viruses were normalized for reverse
transcriptase activity and used to infect the following target cells:
(i) human PBMC activated with phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and
interleukin-2 or (ii) canine thymocytes expressing human CD4 or human
CD4 plus human CCR5 (42). The target cells were preincubated with the
peptides at varying concentration for 1 h prior to coculture with
the recombinant viruses. Infected cells were harvested 3 days later,
and CAT activity was measured in cell lysates, as previously described
(43).
HIV-1-induced Cytopathic Effect and Viral p24 Antigen
Production--
As described previously (44), MT-4 cells were seeded
at 6 × 104 cells/150 µl/well in a 96-well
microplate. HIV-1 was added at 50 TCID50/well in the
absence or presence of peptide inhibitors. After 4 days of incubation
at 37 °C in a CO2 incubator, the supernatant was
examined for the level of viral p24 antigen using the enzyme immunoassay kit (Beckman Coulter). The cell viability was also determined by 3'-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method. The cytotoxic effect of peptides on MT-4 cells was
assessed by incubating uninfected cells with peptides without the
addition of HIV-1 under the same conditions as above.
 |
RESULTS |
D-Peptides Derived from vMIP-II N Terminus Bind
CXCR4--
In this study, we used synthetic all-D-amino
acid peptides to explore the stereospecificity of the molecular
recognition between the CXCR4 receptor and its ligands. Based on our
previous finding that V1 peptide derived from the N terminus (residues
1-21) of viral chemokine vMIP-II antagonizes CXCR4 function and blocks HIV-1 entry via CXCR4 (35, 36), we synthesized DV1, an
all-D-enantiomer of V1 peptide that has the identical amino
acid sequence as V1 but the chirality of all residues changed to
D-configuration (Table I).
DV1 showed a circular dichroism (CD) spectrum that is the mirror image
of V1 peptide (Fig. 1a). In
addition, the spectra displayed negative and positive intensity bands
near 220 nm for V1 and DV1, respectively, suggesting that both peptides
adopted a random conformation in aqueous solution. If DV1 and V1 are
mirror images of each other as suggested by CD, there is significant conformational difference between them, as highlighted by distinct amino acid side chain orientations in their structural models (Fig.
2).

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
a, CD spectra of DV1 ( ) and V1 ( )
peptides. b, CD spectra of DV1 ( ) and mutant DV1-L1A
( ) peptides.
|
|

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Different amino acid side chain conformations
between DV1 and V1 peptides. These models were randomly
generated and based on the assumption that the peptides adopt a mirror
image structure, as shown by CD spectra. Note that, whereas all amino
acid side chains in these two peptides display different orientations
because of their opposite chiralities, only the side chains of Leu-1
and Trp-5 that are shown by mutation studies to be critical for CXCR4
binding are chosen as representatives and highlighted in
black. Two views of DV1 peptide are shown: one as the
mirror image of V1 peptide with opposite peptide main chain and side
chains and the other after 180° rotation with the same main
chain direction but different side chain orientations.
|
|
DV1 peptide was tested for CXCR4 binding activity in a competitive
binding assay using anti-CXCR4 mAb 12G5 following the procedure described previously (35). Surprisingly, despite the changes in
chirality of all amino acids and thus extensive conformational difference from parent V1 peptide as described above, DV1 peptide showed strong binding affinity for CXCR4 (Fig.
3a). Furthermore, the CXCR4
binding affinity of DV1 peptide was much higher than that of V1
peptide, as shown by an IC50 of 32 nM for DV1
as compared with that of 456 nM for V1 in competing with
the specific CXCR4 binding by mAb 12G5 (Table I). Using another assay
method, DV1 was shown to compete with 125I-SDF-1
in
CXCR4 binding with an IC50 of 13 nM as compared
with that of 218 nM V1 peptide (Fig. 3b).
Because vMIP-II binds other receptors such as CCR5, we tested the
activity of DV1 peptide in CCR5 binding using the
125I-MIP-1
competitive binding method. In contrast to
its strong CXCR4 interaction, DV1 peptide did not show any CCR5 binding
even at a much higher concentration of 100 µM (Fig.
3c). Consistently, a similar observation was made for V1
peptide (35). These results suggested that CXCR4 binding by both DV1
and V1 peptides appear to be receptor-selective.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
a and b, CXCR4 binding of
peptides DV1 ( ) and V1 ( ) as well as controls vMIP-II ( ) and
SDF-1 ( ) as characterized by anti-CXCR4 mAb 12G5 competitive
binding assay (a) and by 125I-SDF-1
competitive binding assay (b). c, CCR5 binding of
peptides DV1 ( ) and V1 ( ) as well as control vMIP-II ( ) as
characterized by 125I-MIP-1 competitive binding
assay.
|
|
To further demonstrate CXCR4 recognition by DV1 peptide, a FAM-labeled
DV1 peptide was prepared for conducting direct ligand binding
experiments on Sup T1 cells that naturally express CXCR4 (Fig.
4). The binding of FAM-DV1 on Sup T1
cells was mediated by CXCR4, as shown by the significant reduction of
binding signal of FAM-DV1 upon the addition of SDF-1
. This was
consistent with the results of DV1 in competing with
125I-SDF-1
in CXCR4 binding as described above and
further supported the hypothesis that DV1 peptide recognizes CXCR4
receptor. To examine whether D- and L-peptides
bind to similar or different site(s) on CXCR4, 100 µM V1
peptide was added and found to block FAM-DV1 binding, completely
similar to the effect of 100 µM unlabeled DV1 peptide
(Fig. 4). These results indicated that these peptides of opposite
chiralities recognize similar or at least overlapping site(s) on the
receptor. Again, this was consistent with the ability of both peptides
in competing with 125I-SDF-1
and mAb 12G5 in CXCR4
binding as described above. Competitive binding studies using FAM-DV1
peptide were also conducted on 293 cells transfected with wild type
CXCR4. When 200 nM FAM-DV1 was used, there was
significantly higher (~50%) FAM-DV1 binding to CXCR4 transfected 293 cells than 293 cells, whereas the difference was much less for lower
concentrations (100 and 200 nM) of FAM-DV1 (data not
shown). This was probably a result of the high nonspecific binding of
FAM-DV1 to 293 cells, which was also observed for
125I-SDF-1
. Consistent with the results obtained on Sup
T1 cells, the binding of FAM-DV1 on CXCR4-transfected 293 cells was
inhibited by the addition of SDF-1
(300 nM), DV1 (100 µM), or V1 (100 µM) (data not shown).

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
CXCR4 binding of FAM-DV1 (200 nM)
competed by SDF-1 (300 nM), DV1
(100 µM), and V1 (100 µM) on Sup T1 cells.
|
|
N-terminal Half of D-Peptides Is the Major Determinant
of CXCR4 Binding--
As described above, the chirality change in all
amino acid residues of V1 peptide resulted in DV1 peptide with
significantly increased CXCR4 affinity. To further explore the effect
of chirality on receptor binding, peptides of hybrid chiralities were
synthesized. By using Cys-11 as the central point of V1 peptide, we
changed the chirality of residues before (residues 1-10) and after
Cys-11 (residues 12-21) to D-configuration, respectively
(Table I). Two peptides synthesized accordingly were therefore
designated as V1-DCL and V1-LCD that were composed of mixed
D- and L-amino acids. V1-DCL peptide has
D-configuration for the N-terminal half and
L-configuration for the C-terminal half, whereas V1-LCD
peptide has the opposite. Both peptides were subjected to anti-CXCR4
mAb 12G5 competitive binding assay. V1-DCL displayed CXCR4 binding activity comparable with DV1, and a similar observation was made for
V1-LCD and V1 (Table I and Fig.
5a). These results further confirmed the ability of CXCR4 in recognizing peptide ligands of
opposite or mixed chiralities. In addition, they suggested that CXCR4
binding affinity of these peptides was mainly determined by the
chirality of their N-terminal half with D-residues at this part interacting with CXCR4 receptor better than
L-residues. Apparently, the first 10 residues of DV1 or V1
are the major determinant of activity. In contrast, chirality change in
the C-terminal half had much less effect on CXCR4 binding activity.

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
a, CXCR4 binding of peptides V1-DCL
( ), V1-LCD ( ), and DV3 ( ). b, CXCR4 binding of
eight DV1 mutant peptides: DV1-L1A ( ), DV1-W5A ( ), DV1-R7A ( ),
DV1-K10A ( ), DV1-C11A ( ), DV1-Q16A ( ), DV1-R18A ( ), and
DV1-C11AC12 ( ). c, CXCR4 binding of peptides DS1 ( )
and S1 ( ) derived from the N terminus of SDF-1 . CXCR4 binding was
determined by anti-CXCR4 mAb 12G5 competitive binding assay.
|
|
To further address the role of the C-terminal half, we synthesized a
truncated DV1 analog, designated as DV3, in which C-terminal residues
(residues 11-21) of DV1 were removed. Although retaining CXCR4
binding, DV3 was less potent than DV1 (Table I and Fig. 5a).
This is consistent with previous study of V3 peptide, a truncated V1
analog that also contains only first 10 residues and shows much
decreased CXCR4 binding as compared with V1 (35). These results
indicated that, although the N-terminal half (residues 1-10) is most
important, the C-terminal half (residues 11-21) also plays a role in
receptor binding.
Specific Residues in D-Peptides Important for CXCR4
Recognition--
To further characterize the structure-activity
relationship of DV1 peptide, eight mutant peptides containing alanine
replacement at various positions of DV1 were synthesized (Table I).
Consistent with the important role of the N-terminal half of DV1
peptide as discussed above, mutations in this part had more significant effect on receptor binding than mutations in the other part. Mutant peptides DV1-L1A, DV1-W5A, and DV1-R7A containing alanine substitutions at Leu-1, Tyr-5, and Arg-7, respectively, all displayed a substantial loss of CXCR4 binding with a decrease in IC50 values of
34-741-fold (Table I and Fig. 5b). In contrast, mutations
in the C-terminal half (Cys-11, Cys-12, Gln-16, and Arg-18) led to
little or less significant change in binding activity. To determine
whether the difference in receptor affinity of these mutant peptides
were the result of conformational changes induced by the mutations, we
studied the solution conformations of DV1-L1A that showed the most
dramatic change in CXCR4 binding by CD spectroscopy. DV1-L1A and DV1
displayed similar CD spectra, indicating no major conformational difference (Fig. 1b). As such, changes in CXCR4 binding of
mutant peptides were more likely caused by the loss of specific side chains from the alanine replacement and thus should reflect the role of
these side chains in receptor interactions.
Because both DV1 and V1 peptides recognize CXCR4 despite their very
different side chain orientations caused by changes in chirality, this
raised the question of whether these peptides may bind the receptor
through nonspecific interactions. A diverse group of peptides and
organic molecules with a high positive charge (+8 or +9) are known to
bind CXCR4, presumably through electrostatic interactions with the
negatively charged surface (
9) of CXCR4 (45-48). It can be imagined
that these interactions are likely less sensitive to changes in the
stereochemistry of ligands so long as the overall positive charge is
maintained. However, this should not be the case for DV1 peptide
because it has an overall charge of only +3.5, much lower than other
highly positively charged CXCR4 ligands described above. In addition,
mutant peptides DV1-K10A and DV1-R18A, in which positively charged side
chains of Lys-10 and Arg-18 were removed, respectively, have an even
lower charge of +2.5, yet retain significant CXCR4 binding activity.
Most importantly, as discussed above for mutants DV1-L1A and DV1-W5A,
uncharged hydrophobic side chains (most notably the side chain of
Leu-1) of DV1 peptide play an essential role in receptor recognition and are responsible for different receptor affinities of up to 741-fold. A similar conclusion was drawn in previous analysis of V1 and
mutant peptides (36). Taken together, these data clearly demonstrated
that, despite the seemingly contradictory notion of the nonspecificity
of CXCR4 toward the stereochemistry of ligands, CXCR4 interacts with
both DV1 and V1 peptides with a high degree of sensitivity for specific
side chain groups in these peptides.
Given that the orientations of side chains in DV1 and V1 peptides are
not the same because of their different D- and
L-configurations (Fig. 2), one should expect that
corresponding residues in DV1 and V1 peptides have distinct
interactions with CXCR4 and thus contribute differently to receptor
binding. To verify this, we compared the changes in receptor binding
affinity caused by mutations in DV1 and V1 peptides (Table
II). The largest difference in residue contribution to receptor binding between DV1 and V1 peptides was found
for those residues at the N-terminal half, e.g. Leu-1 was the most critical binding determinant and Lys-10 the least important one for DV1, whereas the corresponding Lys-10 was most critical for V1.
By contrast, the difference in residue contribution to CXCR4 affinity
between these two peptides was much smaller for the C-terminal half,
which was consistent with the less important role of the C-terminal
half in receptor recognition.
D-Peptides Derived from SDF-1
N Terminus Also
Recognize CXCR4--
Having shown that the peptide binding surface of
CXCR4 is tolerant of chirality changes in peptide ligands derived from
the N terminus of vMIP-II, we wanted to test whether this may also apply to other chemokine-derived peptides. A peptide derived from the N
terminus (residues 5-14) of SDF-1
has been shown previously to bind
CXCR4 (31-33). With different size and sequence from DV1 and V1
peptides, this SDF-1
N-terminal peptide should allow us to test the
generality of our hypothesis. Both D- and
L-enantiomers of this peptide sequence were synthesized and
designated as DS1 and S1 peptides, respectively (Table I). Their
different conformations as the mirror image of each other were
confirmed by CD spectra (data not shown). DS1 and S1 peptides showed
similar binding affinity for CXCR4 in anti-CXCR4 mAb 12G5 competitive
binding assay (Fig. 5c). The ability of both peptides to
recognize CXCR4 was also verified by a different binding method using
125I-SDF-1
(data not shown). These results further
supported the notion that CXCR4 receptor can accommodate the changes in
amino acid chirality of different peptide ligands.
D-Peptides Inhibit SDF-1
Signaling through
CXCR4--
DV1 peptide was tested for activity in inducing signal via
CXCR4 as measured by intracellular calcium influx in Sup T1 cells expressing the receptor. DV1 did not show any activity in triggering CXCR4 signal transduction but blocked SDF-1
signaling via CXCR4, thus indicating that it is an antagonist of CXCR4 function (Fig. 6). This is consistent with a previous
observation that V1 peptide is also a CXCR4 antagonist (35). For those
DV1 mutant peptides that had some binding activity for CXCR4 (Table I),
their ability to induce signal or interfere with SDF-1
signaling via
CXCR4 was also studied by using the same assay. None of the mutant
peptides tested showed any signaling activity via CXCR4 and are thus
receptor antagonists like the parent DV1 peptide (data not shown).

View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Intracellular calcium influx in Sup T1
cells. DV1 peptide with the indicated concentrations and SDF-1a
(100 nM) were sequentially used to treat Sup T1
cells.
|
|
D-Peptides Are Highly Stable in Human Serum--
The
incorporation of D-amino acids into a peptide sequence
should enhance its resistance to proteolytic degradation because unnatural residues are less likely to be recognized by natural enzymes.
To test this, the biological stability of DV1 and V1 peptides was
studied in human serum. The peptides were mixed with human serum and
degraded products of peptides monitored by HPLC for a period of time.
V1 peptide was rapidly degraded, and by 24 h the peptide peak on
HPLC disappeared completely (data not shown). In contrast, DV1 peptide
did not show any degradation during the same period and even after
72 h of prolonged incubation with human serum. These results were
consistent with the notion that DV1 peptide has much higher biological
stability than V1 peptide, which should be of advantage for any
potential clinical application.
D-Peptides Inhibit HIV-1 Replication in
CXCR4+ Cell Lines--
Having shown that DV1 peptide is a
potent CXCR4 antagonist and highly stable in biological conditions, we
reasoned that it could inhibit the replication of
CXCR4-dependent HIV-1 strains by blocking the entry of
viruses via CXCR4 co-receptor. By measuring CAT activity in activated
human PBMC infected with a recombinant HIV-1 containing the HXBc2
envelope glycoproteins, we found that DV1 peptide was a potent
inhibitor of infection. By contrast, a control mutant peptide DV1-L1A,
which contains a single alanine substitution at Leu-1 but substantially
loses CXCR4 binding, did not show any activity (Fig.
7a). The DV1 peptide was
completely inactive in control experiments measuring CAT activity in
CCR5+CD4+ Cf2Th cells infected with the
dual tropic 89.6 HIV-1 strain (Fig. 7b). These data are in
agreement with other results described above and demonstrate that DV1
peptide is a selective inhibitor of HIV-1 co-receptor function of CXCR4
but not CCR5. Note that two different cells (activated PBMC and
CCR5+CD4+ Cf2Th cells) were used to test
the inhibition by the peptide of HIV-1 entry via CXCR4 and CCR5,
respectively. Activated PBMC were used because they are the most
relevant target cells for HIV-1 infection in vivo. Because
activated PBMC express both CXCR4 and CCR5, we used an X4 virus, which
utilizes only CXCR4 as a coreceptor. To demonstrate that entry of the
virus is not inhibited by the peptide when CCR5 is used as a
coreceptor, one needs to switch both target cells and virus. For this
reason, we used Cf2Th cells that express CD4 and CCR5 and can be
utilized by an R5 X4 virus that uses both CCR5 and CXCR4.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Inhibition of HIV-1 replication by DV1
peptide ( ) and a negative control mutant DV1-L1A ( ).
a, inhibition by peptides of CAT activity in target PBMC
incubated with recombinant HIV-1 expressing CAT and containing the X4
HXBc2 envelope glycoproteins. b, inhibition of CAT activity
by peptides at 20 µM in CCR5+CD4+
Cf2Th cells infected with recombinant virus containing the
envelope glycoproteins of the dual tropic 89.6 HIV-1 strain.
c, inhibition of p24 production by peptides in MT-4 cells
infected with HIV-1 isolated from the supernatant of
H9/IIIB cells.
|
|
The ability of DV1 peptide to block HIV-1 replication was also
confirmed in another assay measuring the production of viral p24
antigen in MT-4 cells after being infected with HIV-1 isolated from the
supernatant of H9/IIIB cells. DV1 strongly inhibited p24
production as compared with control mutant DV1-L1A (Fig.
7c). Consistent with this observation, the cell viability
assay showed that DV1 protected MT-4 cells from the cytopathic effects
of HIV-1 infection (data not shown). It was noted that, when V1 peptide was used for comparison, it was active during the initial period and
gradually lost effect over time, whereas DV1 peptide maintained its
activity throughout the course of experiments. This is consistent with
the higher biological stability of DV1 peptide as described above and
supports the notion that peptides of D-amino acids have advantages for therapeutic application.
 |
DISCUSSION |
CXCR4 plays an essential role in many physiological functions as
the receptor for chemokines such as SDF-1
. In addition, CXCR4 is
involved in the pathogenesis of HIV-1 infection by serving as the
co-receptor for the cellular entry of T and dual tropic virus strains.
CXCR4 belongs to the GPCR superfamily, which contains a large number of
membrane proteins that are important therapeutic targets but whose
structures and interactions with their ligands need to be further
elucidated. In this study, we explored the mechanism of CXCR4-ligand
recognition with synthetic chemokine-derived peptides containing
D-amino acids in an attempt to gain insights into the
structure and function of CXCR4 and design novel inhibitors of HIV-1
entry. Through structure and function analyses of a series of
D-peptides, D- and L-hybrid
peptides, and mutant analogs derived from vMIP-II and SDF-1
, we
found that the CXCR4 binding surface is tolerant of changes in peptide
stereochemistry. These peptides containing some or all
D-amino acids display significantly different topologies on
side chains from L-counterparts and yet retain or even
enhance their highly specific interactions with the receptor. This
seems to be contrary to the notion that, in general, receptor-ligand interface is highly sensitive to changes in stereo configurations of ligands.
ALX40-4C, a peptide of nine D-Arg residues, is known to
bind CXCR4 (45). However, this peptide, like other highly positively charged molecules such as T-22 (46) and AMD3100 (47), most likely acts
through overall charge-charge electrostatic interactions (48). This is
different from the D- and L-peptides reported here for which specific interactions of uncharged hydrophobic side
chains of the peptides with the receptor are clearly important. D-Peptides of same L-peptide sequences such as
DV1 described here are different from D-peptides of
reversed L-peptide sequences or so-called
"retro-inverso" peptides. Retro-inverso peptides can have the
identical side chain topology but opposite main chain direction as
compared with L-counterparts (49). In contrast, D-peptides such as DV1 retain the same main chain direction
but adopt a distinct side chain topology (Fig. 2). Normally, such a
change in the stereochemistry of side chains should disrupt a
stereospecific ligand-receptor interface. There are only a limited number of cases reported in the literature where both D-
and L-peptide enantiomers recognize the same receptors,
such as L- and D-peptide ligands for calmodulin
(50, 51), L- and D-peptides derived from type
IV collagen that bind the
3
1 integrin
(52, 53), and L- and D-peptide ligands for the
co-chaperone DnaJ (Hsp40) (54). However, to our knowledge of current
literature, CXCR4 binding by D- and L-peptide
ligands derived from natural chemokines as reported here is
unprecedented for chemokine receptors and membrane proteins of the GPCR
family. Whether this is a unique property of CXCR4 or a similar
phenomenon can be found in other chemokine receptors or GPCRs remains
to be seen.
Our results provide surprising new insights into the biochemical nature
of the CXCR4 binding surface and should prompt further studies of the
mechanism for the sterical tolerance of CXCR4-peptide interactions.
More studies are needed to characterize the detailed binding sites of
D- and L-peptides on the receptor and
structural basis of D-peptide binding. Such studies include
site-directed mutations of potential receptor residues involved in the
binding of these peptide ligands and molecular modeling of
peptide-CXCR4 interaction using the recently proposed models of CXCR4
structure (27, 28). In addition, it will be important to extend this present study of D-peptides to modifications of full-length
chemokine proteins and examine the structure-function relationship of
their interactions with the receptor. We are currently exploring these and other related issues. Finally, it is of interest to examine whether
the observation reported here may have any implication for
understanding CXCR4 interaction with HIV-1. One may speculate that the
flexibility of the CXCR4-ligand interface might be a feature of CXCR4
that HIV-1 capitalizes on. This might allow sequence and/or
conformational variation to occur in the V3 loop, one of the gp120
components thought to interact with CXCR4. If the resulting changes in
the gp120 V3 loop are accommodated by the flexible binding surface of
CXCR4 but not that of an antibody, the virus can then evade
neutralizing antibodies although maintaining a high affinity for the
coreceptor that is necessary for viral entry into the cell. These
hypotheses as raised by the present study merit further investigations.
The understanding of the mechanism and structural basis for the
remarkable property of the CXCR4 binding surface described here will
have important implications for the design of novel ligands. Receptors
and proteins mediating the HIV-1 entry process have become important
targets for drug discovery, as agents blocking the virus from entering
cells will serve as a new type of therapeutic that augments the arsenal
of current drugs targeting the replication of the virus inside the
cell. Small molecule inhibitors of HIV-1 entry via two principal
co-receptors CXCR4 and CCR5 have been reported (32, 45-47, 55). In
addition, HIV-1 entry inhibitors have also been developed to target the
HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp41 (56). In this study, by taking
advantage of the stability of unnatural D-amino acids, DV1
peptide shows significant anti-HIV-1 activity in biological conditions
and thus may be a desirable lead for potential therapeutic development.
As shown by this D-peptide, the apparent lack of
stereospecificity of the CXCR4 binding surface as observed here might
be exploited for the design of other highly stable and potent ligand
molecules with novel topological features.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants GM57761, AI45414, AI24755, and AI41851; by Center for AIDS Research Grant AI42848; by gifts from the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation, the Friends 10, the late William F. McCarty-Cooper, and Douglas and Judith Krupp; and by a grant from the
Japan Science Foundation.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.
§
These authors contributed equally to this work.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of
Biochemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 302 Burrill Hall, MC-119, 407 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801. Tel.:
217-265-0942; Fax: 217-265-0992; E-mail: z-huang@life.uiuc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 5, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M202063200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
HIV, human
immunodeficiency virus;
SDF, stromal cell-derived factor;
vMIP, viral
macrophage inflammatory protein;
MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein;
GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor;
Fmoc, N-(9-fluorenyl)methoxycarbonyl;
DMF, N,N-dimethylformamide;
CAT, chloramphenicol
acetyltransferase;
PBS, phosphate-buffered saline;
mAb, monoclonal antibody;
PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cell;
HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Nagasawa, T.,
Hirota, S.,
Tachibana, K.,
Takakura, N.,
Nishikawa, S.,
Kitamura, Y.,
Yoshida, N.,
Kikutani, H.,
and Kishimoto, T.
(1996)
Nature
382,
635-638[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Zou, Y.,
Kottmann, A.,
Kuroda, M.,
Taniuchi, I.,
and Littman, D.
(1998)
Nature
393,
595-599[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Ma, Q.,
Jones, D.,
Borghesani, P. R.,
Segal, R. A.,
Nagasawa, T.,
Kishimoto, T.,
Bronsoni, R. T.,
and Springer, T. A.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
9448-9453[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Feng, Y.,
Broder, C. C.,
Kennedy, P. E.,
and Berger, E. A.
(1996)
Science
272,
872-877[Abstract]
|
| 5.
|
Dragic, T.,
Litwin, V.,
Allaway, G. P.,
Martin, S. R.,
Huang, Y.,
Nagashima, K. A.,
Cayanan, C.,
Maddon, P. J.,
Koup, R. A.,
Moore, J. P.,
and Paxton, W. A.
(1996)
Nature
381,
667-673[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Deng, H.,
Liu, R.,
Ellmeier, W.,
Choe, S.,
Unutmaz, D.,
Burkhart, M.,
Marzio, P. D.,
Marmon, S.,
Sutton, R. E.,
Hill, C. M.,
Davis, C. B.,
Peiper, S. C.,
Schall, T. J.,
Littman, D. R.,
and Landau, N. R.
(1996)
Nature
381,
661-666[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Alkhatib, G.,
Combadiere, C.,
Broder, C. C.,
Feng, Y.,
Kennedy, P. E.,
and Murphy, P. M.
(1996)
Science
272,
1955-1958[Abstract]
|
| 8.
|
Bleul, C. C.,
Farzan, M.,
Choe, H.,
Parolin, C.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
and Sodroski, J.
(1996)
Nature
382,
829-833[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Oberlin, E.,
Amara, A.,
Bachelerie, F.,
Bessia, C.,
Virelizier, J. L.,
Arenzana-Seisdedos, F.,
Schwartz, O.,
Heard, J. M.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
Legler, D. F.,
Loetscher, M.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Moser, B.
(1996)
Nature
382,
833-835[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Moore, P. S.,
Boshoff, C.,
Weiss, R. A.,
and Chang, Y.
(1996)
Science
274,
1739-1744[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Boshoff, C.,
Endo, Y.,
Collins, P. D.,
Takeuchi, Y.,
Reeves, J. D.,
Schweickart, V. L.,
Siani, M. A.,
Sasaki, T.,
Williams, T. J.,
Gray, P. W.,
Moore, P. S.,
Chang, Y.,
and Weiss, R. A.
(1997)
Science
278,
290-294[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Kledal, T. N.,
Rosenkilde, M. M.,
Coulin, F.,
Simmons, G.,
Johnsen, A. H.,
Alouani, S.,
Power, C. A.,
Luttichau, H. R.,
Gerstoft, J.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Clark-Lewis, I.,
Wells, T. N. C.,
and Schwartz, T. W.
(1997)
Science
277,
1656-1659[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Murphy, P. M.
(1994)
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
12,
593-633[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Strader, C. D.,
Fong, T. M.,
Tota, M. R.,
and Underwood, D.
(1994)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
63,
101-132[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Picard, L.,
Wilkinson, D. A.,
McKnight, A.,
Gray, P. W.,
Hoxie, J. A.,
Clapham, P. R.,
and Weiss, R. A.
(1997)
Virology
231,
105-111[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 16.
|
Brelot, A.,
Heveker, N.,
Pleskoff, O.,
Sol, N.,
and Alizon, M.
(1997)
J. Virol.
71,
4744-4751[Abstract]
|
| 17.
|
Lu, Z.,
Berson, J. F.,
Chen, Y.,
Turner, J. D.,
Zhang, T.,
Sharron, M.,
Jenks, M. H.,
Wang, Z.,
Kim, J.,
Rucker, J.,
Hoxie, J. A.,
Peiper, S. C.,
and Doms, R. W.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
6426-6431[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Wang, Z. X.,
Berson, J. F.,
Zhang, T. Y.,
Cen, Y. H.,
Sun, Y.,
Sharron, M., Lu, Z. H.,
and Peiper, S. C.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
15007-15015[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Chabot, D. J.,
Zhang, P. F.,
Quinnan, G. V.,
and Broder, C. C.
(1999)
J. Virol.
73,
6598-6609[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Doranz, B.,
Orsini, M.,
Turner, J.,
Hoffman, T.,
Berson, J.,
Hoxie, J.,
Peiper, S.,
Brass, L.,
and Doms, R.
(1999)
J. Virol.
73,
2752-2761[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Chabot, D. J.,
and Broder, C. C.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
23774-23782[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Brelot, A.,
Heveker, N.,
Montes, M.,
and Alizon, M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
23736-23744[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Kajumo, F.,
Thompson, D. A.,
Guo, Y.,
and Dragic, T.
(2000)
Virology
271,
240-247[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 24.
|
Luo, Z.,
Butcher, D.,
and Huang, Z.
(1997)
Protein Eng.
10,
1039-1045[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Zhou, N.,
Luo, Z.,
Hall, J. W.,
Luo, J.,
Han, X.,
and Huang, Z.
(2000)
Eur. J. Immunol.
30,
164-173[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Lee, B.,
Sharron, M.,
Blanpain, C.,
Doranz, B. J.,
Vakili, J.,
Setoh, P.,
Berg, E.,
Liu, G.,
Guy, H. R.,
Durell, S. R.,
Parmentier, M.,
Chang, C. N.,
Price, K.,
Tsang, M.,
and Doms, R. W.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
9617-9626[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 27.
|
Chabot, D. J.,
Chen, H.,
Dimitrov, D. S.,
and Broder, C. C.
(2000)
J. Virol.
74,
4404-4413[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Zhou, N.,
Luo, Z.,
Luo, J.,
Liu, D.,
Hall, J. W.,
Pomerantz, R. J.,
and Huang, Z.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
42826-42833[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Clark-Lewis, I.,
Kim, K. S.,
Rajarathnam, K.,
Gong, J. H.,
Dewald, B.,
Moser, B.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Sykes, B. D.
(1995)
J. Leukocyte Biol.
57,
703-711[Abstract]
|
| 30.
|
Crump, M. P.,
Gong, J. H.,
Loetscher, P.,
Rajarathnam, K.,
Amara, A.,
Arenzana-Seisdedos, F.,
Virelizier, J. L.,
Baggiolini, M.,
Sykes, B. D.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1997)
EMBO J.
16,
6996-7007[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Loetscher, P.,
Gong, J. H.,
Dewald, B.,
Baggiolini, M.,
and Clark-Lewis, I.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
22279-22283[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Heveker, N.,
Montes, M.,
Germeroth, L.,
Amara, A.,
Trautmann, A.,
Alizon, M.,
and Schneider-Mergener, J.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
8,
369-376[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Luo, Z.,
Zhou, N.,
Luo, J.,
Hall, J. W.,
and Huang, Z.
(1999)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
263,
691-695[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Luo, J.,
Luo, Z.,
Zhou, N.,
Hall, J. W.,
and Huang, Z.
(1999)
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
264,
42-47[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Zhou, N.,
Luo, Z.,
Luo, J.,
Hall, J. W.,
and Huang, Z.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
3782-3787[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Luo, Z.,
Fan, X.,
Zhou, N.,
Hiraoka, M.,
Luo, J.,
Kaji, H.,
and Huang, Z.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
13545-13550[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Endres, M. J.,
Clapham, P. R.,
Marsh, M.,
Ahuja, M.,
Turner, J. D.,
McKnight, A.,
Thomas, J. F.,
Stoebenau-Haggarty, B.,
Choe, S.,
Vance, P. J.,
Wells, T. N.,
Power, C. A.,
Sutterwala, S. S.,
Doms, R. W.,
Landau, N. R.,
and Hoxie, J. A.
(1996)
Cell
87,
745-756[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Satoh, T.,
Aramini, J. M., Li, S.,
Friedman, T. M.,
Gao, J.,
Edling, A.,
Townsend, R.,
Germann, M. W.,
Korngold, R.,
and Huang, Z.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
12175-12180[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
Li, S.,
Choksi, S.,
Shan, S.,
Gao, J.,
Korngold, R.,
and Huang, Z.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
16442-16445[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Butcher, D. J.,
Kowalska, M. A., Li, S.,
Luo, Z.,
Shan, S., Lu, Z.,
Niewiarowski, S.,
and Huang, Z.
(1997)
FEBS Lett.
409,
183-187[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Thali, M.,
Furman, C., Ho, D. D.,
Robinson, J.,
Tilley, S.,
Pinter, A.,
and Sodroski, J.
(1991)
J. Virol.
66,
5635-5641
|
| 42.
|
Choe, H.,
Farzan, M.,
Konkel, M.,
Martin, K.,
Sun, Y.,
Marcon, L.,
Cayabyab, M.,
Berman, M.,
Dorf, M. E.,
Gerard, N.,
Gerard, C.,
and Sodroski, J.
(1998)
J. Virol.
72,
6113-6118[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 43.
|
Helseth, E.,
Kowalski, M.,
Gabuzda, D.,
Olshevsky, U.,
Haseltine, W.,
and Sodroski, J.
(1990)
J. Virol.
64,
2416-2420[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Fujihashi, T.,
Sakata, T.,
Kaji, A.,
and Kaji, H.
(1995)
AIDS Res. Hum. Retroviruses
11,
461-471[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 45.
|
Doranz, B. J.,
Grovit-Ferbas, K.,
Sharron, M. P.,
Mao, S. H.,
Goetz, M. B.,
Daar, E. S.,
Doms, R. W.,
and O'Brien, W. A.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
1395-1400[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 46.
|
Murakami, T.,
Nakajima, T.,
Koyanagi, Y.,
Tachibana, K.,
Fujii, N.,
Tamamura, H.,
Yoshida, N.,
Waki, M.,
Matsumoto, A.,
Yoshie, O.,
Kishimoto, T.,
Yamamoto, N.,
and Nagasawa, T.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
1389-1393[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Schols, D.,
Struyf, S.,
van Damme, J.,
Este, J. A.,
Henson, G.,
and De Clercq, E.
(1997)
J. Exp. Med.
186,
1383-1388[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.< |