Human T cell leukemia viruses (HTLVs) are complex human retroviruses of the Deltaretrovirus genus. Four types have been identified thus far, with HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 much more prevalent than HTLV-3 or HTLV-4. HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 possess strictly related genomic structures, but differ significantly in pathogenicity, as HTLV-1 is the causative agent of adult T cell leukemia and of HTLV-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis, whereas HTLV-2 is not associated with neoplasia. HTLVs code for a protein named Tax that is responsible for enhancing viral expression and drives cell transformation. Much effort has been invested to dissect the impact of Tax on signal transduction pathways and to identify functional differences between the HTLV Tax proteins that may explain the distinct oncogenic potential of HTLV-1 and HTLV-2. This review summarizes our current knowledge of Tax-1 and Tax-2 with emphasis on their structure, role in activation of the NF-κB (nuclear factor kappa-B) pathway, and interactions with host factors.

Human T-lymphotropic viruses type 1 (HTLV-1) and type 2 (HTLV-2) present very similar genomic structures but HTLV-1 is more pathogenic than HTLV-2. Is this difference due to their transactivating Tax proteins, Tax-1 and Tax-2, which are responsible for viral and cellular gene activation? Do Tax-1 and Tax-2 differ in their cellular localization and in their interaction pattern with cellular factors? In this review, we summarize Tax-1 and Tax-2 structural and phenotypic properties, their interaction with factors involved in signal transduction and their localization-related behavior within the cell. Special attention will be given to the distinctions between Tax-1 and Tax-2 that likely play an important role in their transactivation activity.

The human retroviruses HIV-1 and HTLV-1/HTLV-2 share similar routes of transmission but cause significantly different diseases. In this review we have outlined the immune mediated mechanisms by which HTLVs affect HIV-1 disease in co-infected hosts. During co-infection with HIV-1, HTLV-2 modulates the cellular microenvironment favoring its own viability and inhibiting HIV-1 progression. This is achieved when the HTLV-2 proviral load is higher than that of HIV-1, and thanks to the ability of HTLV-2 to: (i) up-regulate viral suppressive CCL3L1 chemokine expression; (ii) overcome HIV-1 capacity to activate the JAK/STAT pathway; (iii) reduce the activation of T and NK cells; (iv) modulate the host miRNA profiles. These alterations of immune functions have been mainly attributed to the effects of the HTLV-2 regulatory protein Tax and suggest that HTLV-2 exerts a protective role against HIV-1 infection. Contrary to HIV-1/HTLV-2, the effect of HIV-1/HTLV-1 co-infection on immunological and pathological conditions is still controversial. There is evidence that indicates a worsening of HIV-1 infection, while other evidence does not show clinically relevant effects in HIV-positive people. Possible differences on innate immune mechanisms and a particularly impact on NK cells are becoming evident. The differences between the two HIV-1/HTLV-1 and HIV-1/HTLV-2 co-infections are highlighted and further discussed.

Background: A possible association between human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection and colorectal cancer progression has been inferred by the identification in tumour tissues of HCMV antigens and specific viral DNA or RNA sequences. To further investigate the relationship between HCMV and colorectal cancers we developed qualitative and quantitative PCR assay to detect HCMV DNA in 56 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples from patients belonging to 4 different histological phenotypes: adenoma; poorly, moderately and well differentiated adenocarcinomas. Results: Of the 56 FFPE tested tissue samples, 6 (11%) were positive for HCMV nested PCR amplification, and more precisely 1 (5%) of 20 cases of adenoma and 5 (21%) of 24 cases of moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. No PCR positivity was obtained in samples from well and poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. Conclusion: Our observations suggest that there is no evidence of a direct association between HCMV and colorectal cancer. Moreover, the results obtained are not supportive of a causal role of HCMV in the processes of carcinogenesis and/or progression of colorectal cancer. However, the fact that the virus may present a "hit and run" like-mechanism and HCMV can thus only be detectable at a particular stage of a processing adenocarcinoma, suggests that a significant number of colorectal cancers might have been the subject of HCMV infection that could contribute to trigger the oncogenic differentiation. Our analysis does not exclude the possibility of HCMV infection subsequent viral clearance.