Sheep retroviruses can be used to map the selective preferences of early farmers and trace livestock movements across Europe.

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are remnants of ancient retroviral infections of the host germline transmitted vertically from generation to generation. It is hypothesized that some ERVs are used by the host as restriction factors to block the infection of pathogenic retroviruses. Indeed, some ERVs efficiently interfere with the replication of related exogenous retroviruses. However, data suggesting that these mechanisms have influenced the coevolution of endogenous and/or exogenous retroviruses and their hosts have been more difficult to obtain. Sheep are an interesting model system to study retrovirus-host coevolution because of the coexistence in this animal species of two exogenous (i.e., horizontally transmitted) oncogenic retroviruses, Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus and Enzootic nasal tumor virus, with highly related and biologically active endogenous retroviruses (enJSRVs). Here, we isolated and characterized the evolutionary history and molecular virology of 27 enJSRV proviruses. enJSRVs have been integrating in the host genome for the last 5–7 million y. Two enJSRV proviruses (enJS56A1 and enJSRV-20), which entered the host genome within the last 3 million y (before and during speciation within the genus Ovis), acquired in two temporally distinct events a defective Gag polyprotein resulting in a transdominant phenotype able to block late replication steps of related exogenous retroviruses. Both transdominant proviruses became fixed in the host genome before or around sheep domestication (∼ 9,000 y ago). Interestingly, a provirus escaping the transdominant enJSRVs has emerged very recently, most likely within the last 200 y. Thus, we determined sequentially distinct events during evolution that are indicative of an evolutionary antagonism between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses. This study strongly suggests that endogenization and selection of ERVs acting as restriction factors is a mechanism used by the host to fight retroviral infections. The genome of all vertebrates is heavily colonized by “endogenous” retroviruses (ERVs). ERVs derive from retrovirus infections of the germ cells of the host during evolution, leading to permanent integration of the viral genome into the host DNA. Because ERVs are integrated in the host genome, they are transmitted to subsequent generations like any other host gene. The function of endogenous retroviruses is not completely clear, but some ERVs can block the replication cycle of horizontally transmitted “exogenous” pathogenic retroviruses. These observations lead to the hypothesis that ERVs have protected the host during evolution against incoming pathogenic retroviruses. Here, by characterizing the evolutionary history and molecular virology of a particular group of endogenous betaretroviruses of sheep (enJSRVs) we show a fascinating series of events unveiling the endless struggle between host and retroviruses. In particular, we discovered that: (i) two enJSRV loci that entered the host genome before speciation within the genus Ovis (∼ 3 million y ago) acquired, after their integration, a mutated defective viral protein capable of blocking exogenous related retroviruses; (ii) both these transdominant enJSRV loci became fixed in the host genome before or around sheep domestication (∼ 10,000 y ago); (iii) the invasion of the sheep genome by ERVs of the JSRV/enJSRVs group is still in progress; and (iv) new viruses have recently emerged (less than 200 y ago) that can escape the transdominant enJSRV loci. This study strongly suggests that endogenization and selection of ERVs acting as restriction factors is a mechanism used by the host to fight retroviral infections.

The sheep genome harbors approximately 20 endogenous retroviruses (enJSRVs) highly related to the exogenous Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV). One of the enJSRV loci, enJS56A1, acts as a unique restriction factor by blocking JSRV in a transdominant fashion at a late stage of the retroviral cycle. To better understand the molecular basis of this restriction (termed JLR, for J SRV l ate r estriction), we functionally characterized JSRV and enJS56A1 Gag proteins. We identified the putative JSRV Gag membrane binding and late domains and determined their lack of involvement in JLR. In addition, by using enJS56A1 truncation mutants, we established that the entire Gag protein is necessary to restrict JSRV exit. By using differentially tagged viruses, we observed, by confocal microscopy, colocalization between JSRV and enJS56A1 Gag proteins. By coimmunoprecipitation and molecular complementation analyses, we also revealed intracellular association and likely coassembly between JSRV and enJS56A1 Gag proteins. Interestingly, JSRV and enJS56A1 Gag proteins showed distinct intracellular targeting: JSRV exhibited pericentrosomal accumulation of Gag staining, while enJS56A1 Gag did not accumulate in this region. Furthermore, the number of cells displaying pericentrosomal JSRV Gag was drastically reduced in the presence of enJS56A1. We identified amino acid residue R21 in JSRV Gag as the primary determinant of centrosome targeting. We concluded that JLR is dependent on a Gag-Gag interaction between enJS56A1 and JSRV leading to altered cellular localization of the latter.

Endogenous betaretroviruses (enJSRVs) of sheep are expressed abundantly in the female reproductive tract and play a crucial role in conceptus development and placental morphogenesis. Interestingly, the colonization of the sheep genome by enJSRVs is likely still ongoing. During early pregnancy, enJSRV expression correlates with the production of tau interferon (IFNT), a type I IFN, by the developing conceptus. IFNT is the pregnancy recognition signal in ruminants and possesses potent antiviral activity. In this study, we show that IFNT induces the expression of bone marrow stromal cell antigen 2 (BST2) (also termed CD317/tetherin) both in vitro and in vivo . The BST2 gene is duplicated in ruminants. Transfection assays found that ovine BST2 proteins (oBST2A and oBST2B) block release of viral particles produced by intact enJSRV loci and of related exogenous and pathogenic jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV). Ovine BST2A appears to restrict enJSRVs more efficiently than oBST2B. In vivo , the expression of BST2A/B and enJSRVs in the endometrium increases after day 12 and remains high between days 14 and 20 of pregnancy. In situ hybridization analyses found that oBST2A is expressed mainly in the endometrial stromal cells but not in the luminal and glandular epithelial cells, in which enJSRVs are highly expressed. In conclusion, enJSRVs may have coevolved in the presence of oBST2A/B by being expressed in different cellular compartments of the same organ. Viral expression in cells unable to express BST2 may be one of the mechanisms used by retroviruses to escape restriction.

IFITMs are broad antiviral factors that block incoming virions in endosomal vesicles, protecting target cells from infection. In the case of HIV-1, we and others reported the existence of an additional antiviral mechanism through which IFITMs lead to the production of virions of reduced infectivity. However, whether this second mechanism of inhibition is unique to HIV or extends to other viruses is currently unknown. To address this question, we have analyzed the susceptibility of a broad spectrum of viruses to the negative imprinting of the virion particles infectivity by IFITMs. The results we have gathered indicate that this second antiviral property of IFITMs extends well beyond HIV and we were able to identify viruses susceptible to the three IFITMs altogether (HIV-1, SIV, MLV, MPMV, VSV, MeV, EBOV, WNV), as well as viruses that displayed a member-specific susceptibility (EBV, DUGV), or were resistant to all IFITMs (HCV, RVFV, MOPV, AAV). The swapping of genetic elements between resistant and susceptible viruses allowed us to point to specificities in the viral mode of assembly, rather than glycoproteins as dominant factors of susceptibility. However, we also show that, contrarily to X4-, R5-tropic HIV-1 envelopes confer resistance against IFITM3, suggesting that viral receptors add an additional layer of complexity in the IFITMs-HIV interplay. Lastly, we show that the overall antiviral effects ascribed to IFITMs during spreading infections, are the result of a bimodal inhibition in which IFITMs act both by protecting target cells from incoming viruses and in driving the production of virions of reduced infectivity. Overall, our study reports for the first time that the negative imprinting of the virion particles infectivity is a conserved antiviral property of IFITMs and establishes IFITMs as a paradigm of restriction factor capable of interfering with two distinct phases of a virus life cycle. IFITMs are interferon-regulated proteins that inhibit a broad range of viruses. Until recently, IFITMs had been described to arrest incoming viral particles in target cells, by inducing their retention in endosomal vesicles. More recently in the case of HIV-1, ours and other laboratories have highlighted the existence of an additional antiviral mechanism with which IFITMs could act in virus-producing cells, leading to the production of virion particles of reduced infectivity. In the present study, we assessed whether the negative imprinting of the virion particles infectivity was a conserved antiviral property of IFITMs by examining a panel of fourteen different DNA or RNA viruses. Our results indicate that a wide spectrum of viruses is susceptible to this antiviral mechanism of inhibition, although some are able to resist it. Swapping of elements between susceptible and resistant viruses strongly suggests that specificities in the mode of virion assembly and not the viral glycoprotein are the dominant factor in the susceptibility of a given virus to this inhibition. However, we also show that HIV-1 strains that engage the CCR5 co-receptor display a notable resistance towards IFITM3, indicating that at least in the case of HIV-1, co-receptor usage is likely to add an additional layer of complexity in the relationship established between IFITMs and the virus, that may or may not extend to other viral families as well. In the context of spreading infections, the results of this study highlight that the overall antiviral effect of IFITMs is mechanistically caused by a previously unappreciated dual mode of action in which they act both in target cells and in virus-producing cells, by respectively forcing endosome trapping of incoming viruses and by commandeering the formation of new virion particles of reduced infectivity. Overall, the results presented here indicate that the negative imprinting of viral particles is a largely conserved antiviral feature of IFITMs and point to IFITMs as a novel paradigm of innate defense proteins capable of interfering with viral replication at two distinct steps of a virus life cycle.

Background: Retroviruses have evolved various mechanisms to optimize their transfer to new target cells via late endosomes. Here, we analyzed the transfer of ZAM, a retroelement from Drosophila melanogaster, from ovarian follicle cells to the oocyte at stage 9–10 of oogenesis, when an active yolk transfer is occurring between these two cell types. Results: Combining genetic and microscopic approaches, we show that a functional secretory apparatus is required to tether ZAM to endosomal vesicles and to direct its transport to the apical side of follicle cells. There, ZAM egress requires an intact follicular epithelium communicating with the oocyte. When gap junctions are inhibited or yolk receptors mutated, ZAM particles fail to sort out the follicle cells. Conclusion: Overall, our results indicate that retrotransposons do not exclusively perform intracellular replication cycles but may usurp exosomal/endosomal traffic to be routed from one cell to another.