Next Article in Journal
Debaryomyces hansenii Is a Real Tool to Improve a Diversity of Characteristics in Sausages and Dry-Meat Products
Next Article in Special Issue
HERV-K Modulates the Immune Response in ALS Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Dose-Dependent Beneficial Effects of Tryptophan and Its Derived Metabolites on Akkermansia In Vitro: A Preliminary Prospective Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicted Cellular Interactors of the Endogenous Retrovirus-K Integrase Enzyme

by
Ilena Benoit
1,†,
Signy Brownell
1,† and
Renée N. Douville
1,2,*
1
Department of Biology, University of Winnipeg, 599 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2G3, Canada
2
Department of Immunology, University of Manitoba, 750 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(7), 1509; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9071509
Submission received: 16 June 2021 / Revised: 6 July 2021 / Accepted: 9 July 2021 / Published: 14 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiological and Pathophysiological Aspects of Endogenous Viruses)

Abstract

:
Integrase (IN) enzymes are found in all retroviruses and are crucial in the retroviral integration process. Many studies have revealed how exogenous IN enzymes, such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) IN, contribute to altered cellular function. However, the same consideration has not been given to viral IN originating from symbionts within our own DNA. Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK) is pathologically associated with neurological and inflammatory diseases along with several cancers. The ERVK IN interactome is unknown, and the question of how conserved the ERVK IN protein–protein interaction motifs are as compared to other retroviral integrases is addressed in this paper. The ERVK IN protein sequence was analyzed using the Eukaryotic Linear Motif (ELM) database, and the results are compared to ELMs of other betaretroviral INs and similar eukaryotic INs. A list of putative ERVK IN cellular protein interactors was curated from the ELM list and submitted for STRING analysis to generate an ERVK IN interactome. KEGG analysis was used to identify key pathways potentially influenced by ERVK IN. It was determined that the ERVK IN potentially interacts with cellular proteins involved in the DNA damage response (DDR), cell cycle, immunity, inflammation, cell signaling, selective autophagy, and intracellular trafficking. The most prominent pathway identified was viral carcinogenesis, in addition to select cancers, neurological diseases, and diabetic complications. This potentiates the role of ERVK IN in these pathologies via protein–protein interactions facilitating alterations in key disease pathways.

1. Introduction

Viral proteins often usurp and alter cellular signaling pathways. For exogenous viruses, this tweaking of cellular function serves to enhance their replicative success through the modulation of pathways related to virion production, dissemination, cell survival, and immunity [1,2]. It is less clear in what manner ever-present viral symbionts such as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) interact with the proteome of their hosts.
The genomes of eukaryotic organisms are widely populated with ERVs [3,4,5]. Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK/HERV-K) is a biomedically-relevant symbiont within the primate lineage [6,7]. Its expression has been associated with a variety of cancers [8], neurological conditions [9,10,11,12,13], autoimmune diseases [14], and infections [13,15]. A common thread that weaves through ERVK-associated disease is genomic instability. DNA damage and genomic alterations are hallmarks of many cancers [16], as well as in the neurons of patients with the motor neuron disease ALS [17,18]. One protein known to cause DNA damage during the retroviral life cycle is the integrase (IN) enzyme [19]. Recovery from IN-driven lesions is reliant on the host DNA damage response (DDR) [20,21].
We have previously shown that several ERVK insertions in the human genome have the potential to produce functional ERVK IN enzymes with the identical DDE active site motif found in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) IN [22]. Based on homology modeling, we predict that the ERVK IN enzyme contains all the essential motifs and domain structures for retroviral IN function [22]. A recombinant ERVK-10 integrase enzyme also confirms that it has the potential for strand-transfer activity [23]. A remaining question is how ERVK IN interacts with cellular proteins and pathways, as has been shown for many other retroviral integrases [19,24,25,26].
Retroviral INs are involved in pre-integration complex (PIC) transport [27], viral genome integration into host DNA [19], and virion maturation [28]. Thus, retroviral integrase enzymes exhibit a diversity of cellular partners and have been shown to impact cell signaling and survival processes, including the DDR [19,29]. For example, retroviral IN often recruits viral proteins (reverse transcriptase, matrix, and capsid) and cellular factors (BANF1, HGMA1, LEDGF) to participate in the viral DNA integration process [30,31]. Moreover, successful viral DNA integration requires engagement of the host DDR proteins to repair residual single-stranded DNA gaps flanking the integration site [20,29,32]. In contrast, failed provirus insertion or unresolved lesions can lead to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) breaks in the host genome [29]. The level of γH2AX foci is positively correlated with the number of double-stranded DNA breaks (DSB) in mammalian cells, and it is widely used as a quantitative biomarker of retrovirus-mediated DSBs [19,33,34]. This genomic damage is particularly hazardous to the cell, as DSB potentially lead to chromosomal rearrangements, cellular deregulation, and apoptosis [35,36]. Thus, as an intrinsic protective measure, select host proteins (RAD51, Kap1, TREX1, p21, HDAC10, TRIM33) are known antagonists of the retroviral integration process [31,37,38,39,40]. Many studies have identified direct protein binding partners and cellular complexes which interact with HIV integrase [41,42,43]; in contrast, the ERVK IN interactome remains unknown.
A complicating factor for the development of model systems to study the impact of ERVK proteins in vivo is that many other organisms contain ERVs with similarity to ERVK. Given the known cellular impacts of retroviral integrases, we hypothesized that a computational biology approach would identify potential cellular partners of ERVK IN and point toward its capacity to modulate cellular pathways. Additionally, a comparison with similar integrases in eukaryotic organism and model species may inform the future establishment of in vivo models for ERVK IN-driven pathology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Database Curation

Integrases with sequence similarity to ERVK IN (based on ERVK-10 [22]; P10266.2) were identified using the National Centre for Biotechnology’s (NCBI) Protein–protein Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTp) within the non-redundant (nr), model organisms (mo), and transcriptome shotgun assembly proteins (tsa) databases [44]. Default algorithm parameters were used, with E-value cut-offs for each database as follows: E < 3.0 × 10−70 (nr), E < 0.01 (mo), E < 2.0 × 10−10 (tsa). Sequences were grouped based on phylogeny as informed by ICTV (International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses; 2021, https://talk.ictvonline.org/ (accessed on 16 May 2021)) or OneZoom (OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer; version 3.4.1; Software for Technical Computation; United Kingdom, 2021, https://www.onezoom.org/ (accessed on 16 May 2021)) [45] and are listed in Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4.

2.2. Protein Alignments and Eukaryotic Linear Motif Annotation

The ERVK IN protein sequence, as well as select representative integrases from exogenous Betaretroviruses (Figure 1) or endogenous retroviruses (Figure 2) were aligned using Geneious Prime (version 2021.0.3; Software for Technical Computation; San Diego, CA, USA; Auckland, New Zealand, 2021) software [46]. A global alignment with free end gaps using BLOSUM62 matrix was performed. Longer sequences were truncated to overlap with the ERVK IN reference sequence. Figures depict the sequence logo and integrase active sites, with HHCC and DDE regions highlighted based on Conserved Domains Database (CDD) annotation [47].
Each aligned integrase sequence was submitted to the Eukaryotic Linear Motif (ELM; Software for Technical Computation; 2020, http://elm.eu.org/ (accessed on 16 May 2021)) resource [48]. A complete listing of ELMs identified in each integrase is presented in Table 1 and Table 2. ELMs unique to ERVK IN, as well as ELM sites exhibiting motif consensus above 70% with other integrases, were annotated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

2.3. STRING Analysis and KEGG Pathways

To identify potential ERVK IN binding partners based on ELM motifs, the names of interacting proteins were curated from each ELM reference page. When only a general interaction domain for a given ELM was listed, it was further linked to the InterPro database to curate a list of human proteins containing the interaction domain. Based on the 48 ELMs identified in ERVK IN, a total of 213 putative human protein interaction partners were identified (Table A5). The list was submitted to STRING (String Consortium; version 11.0; Software for Technical Computation; 2020, https://string-db.org/, accessed on 16 May 2021) for network analysis. Full network analysis was performed using Experiment and Databases as active interaction sources. Nodes indicate submitted query proteins only, with edges indicating confidence lines with a minimum interaction score of 0.9 (highest confidence). Query proteins unlinked to the network were excluded from analysis. A payload list was used to color hub proteins based on cellular function. KEGG pathways associated with the network analysis (E value < 1.0 × 10−5) were presented in a heatmap using GraphPad Prism (version 9.1.1) software, and the full list of KEGG pathways is presented in Table A6.

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of Eukaryotic Linear Motifs in ERVK Integrase and Other Betaretroviral Integrases

To establish which exogenous and endogenous retroviruses contain integrase sequences most similar to ERVK IN, we performed BLASTp searches using the nr, mo, and tsa NCIB databases. As expected, exogenous Betaretroviruses were identified through BLASPp search, which included multiple hits for Mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV), Mason–Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV), Enzootic Nasal Tumor Virus (ENTV), and Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV) (Table A1).
Eukaryotic linear motif (ELM) analysis of a representative sequence from each genus was compared with ERVK IN and revealed the conservation of select protein motifs (Table 1, Figure 1). Apart from the conservation of the HHCC region and DDE active site motif, all betaretroviral integrases also contained many interaction motifs related to DRR, including Pin1 via [ST]P WW domain interaction motifs [49], PP1c docking motif for target dephosphorylation [50], and a S-X-X-S/T CK1 phosphorylation site [51]. All INs except for MMTV contained a low-affinity BRCA1 carboxy-terminal BRCT domain binding motif (CSKAF, aa. 126–132). Betaretroviral INs were also predicted to be phosphorylated by the cell cycle checkpoint kinases NEK2 [52] and PLK-1 [53], as well as interact with a canonical arginine-containing phospho-motif within cell cycle regulating 14-3-3 proteins [54]. Numerous cell signaling protein interactions were predicted including YXXQ motifs for the SH2 domain binding of STAT3 [55], additional SH2 binding motifs related to STAT5 [56] and SRC family kinases [57], SH3 binding motifs with non-canonical class I recognition specificity [58], an IAP-binding motif (aa. 1–4) for interaction with inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAP) [59], an ITIM motif [60], several GSK3 phosphorylation sites [61], and proline-directed ERK/p38 MAPK phosphorylation sites [62]. In addition, most betaretroviral IN enzymes contained features related to protein trafficking, such as a Wxxx[FY] motif (aa. 133–137 in ERVK, MMTV, ENTV, and JRSV) that binds Pex13 and Pex14 for peroxisomal import [63], a SxIP motif (aa. 137–150) that binds to EBH domains in end-binding proteins involved in microtubule transport [64], and a tyrosine-based YXXØ sorting signal (aa. 75–78) for interaction with the μ-subunit of adaptor protein complex [65] and a PEXEL-like motif [66]. The DDE region displayed the most consistent pattern of conserved ELMs among the betaretroviral INs. It is important to note that despite the similar complement of ELM motifs in betaretroviral integrases, many were positioned at sites differently than in ERVK IN. Additional ELMs and their motif frequencies in individual betaretroviral integrases are listed in Table 1.

3.2. Characterization of Eukaryotic Linear Motifs in ERVK Integrase and Other Endogenous Integrases

ERVK integrase-like sequences were found in boreoeutherians, including the Euarchontoglires (primates, rodents, and pikas), and Laurasiatherians (ungulates), along with other clades including Euteleostomi (birds) and Protostomes (worms, insects, and water fleas) (Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4). Results ranged from 26.43 to 83.77% identity and E values ranged from 0.001 to 2.0 × 10−127, demonstrating a high degree of similarity with ERVK IN.
The conservation of ELM motifs was apparent (Table 2, Figure 2), including DDR-related canonical 14-3-3 interaction motifs and WDR5 interaction, cell signaling associated with USP7 binding, IAP-binding motif, STAT5 binding motifs, SH3 protein interaction, as well as phosphorylation sites for CK proteins, GSK3, NEK2, polo-like kinases, and p38. Many LIR motifs for engaging Atg8 proteins during selective autophagy were also apparent. Finally, all IN displayed Pex14 binding motifs and potential to interact with the μ-subunit of the adaptor protein complex. Additional ELMs and their motif frequencies in individual endogenous ERVK-like INs are listed in Table 2.
ELMs within endogenous IN but not or rarely identified in ERVK IN were also noted. An Apicomplexa-specific variant of the canonical LIR motif that binds to Atg8 protein family members was present in all endogenous INs except for ERVK IN. In addition, WDR5 binding motifs were much more prevalent in endogenous INs (5–12 sites) other than ERVK IN (only two sites). ERVK IN contained a single MAPK docking site for ERK/p38, whereas other endogenous INs contained several other motifs for MAPK interaction. Lastly, only human and macaque ERVK INs displayed high-affinity BRCT domain interaction motifs.

3.3. Unlike Similar Enzymes, the ERVK Integrase Contains Distinct ELM Signatures

Two motifs in ERVK IN stand out as unique to this virus, while other signatures are enriched in ERVK IN as compared with similar integrases.

3.3.1. ERVK Integrase has a High-Affinity BRCA1 Binding Site

Among all the integrases examined, only ERVK IN in human and macaque harbored a high-affinity binding site for the BRCT domain of BRCA1 (aa. 125–131, CSKAFQK) (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2).

3.3.2. ERVK Integrase C-Terminus Contains a 14-3-3 Binding RASTE Motif

Although 14-3-3 protein binding was predicted as conserved among ERVK-like integrases, only ERVK IN contained a C-terminal RASTE motif (aa. 276–280) mediating strong interaction with 14-3-3 proteins (Table 1, Figure 1). This suggests a putative ERVK IN interaction with 14-3-3 proteins through both canonical phospho-sites and a C-terminal phospho-site.

3.3.3. ERVK Integrase Is Likely Post-Translationally Sumoylated

Unlike all other INs examined, only ERVK and MMTV contain a C-terminal inverted version (D/ExKphi) of the canonical sumoylation motif [67]. Considering that sumoylation often causes re-localization of nuclear proteins, this modification may be related to ERVK IN nuclear positioning, association with chromatin, and ultimately successful integration of viral DNA [68,69].

3.3.4. ERVK Integrase Exhibits Enhanced Interaction Potential with DDR Proteins

Phospho-Ser/Thr binding domain proteins are key hub proteins in cell cycle regulation and DDR, and they include 14-3-3 proteins, WW domains, Polo-box domains, WD40 repeats, BRCA1 carboxy-terminal (BRCT) domains, and Forkhead-associated (FHA) domains [54], all of which are interacting domains of ELMs identified in ERVK IN (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1). Additionally, ERVK IN contained five (ST)Q motifs, which are potential phosphorylation sites for PIKK proteins, such as DDR-related proteins ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, and multi-functional protein mTOR [70]. As compared with exogenous betaretroviruses and endogenous ERVK-like integrases, ERVK IN displayed a greater number of DDR-related motifs: FHA domain protein interaction sites (6), PLK-1 phosphorylation sites (4), and PP1c docking motif for target dephosphorylation (3) [50]. In contrast to MMTV, ENTV, JSRV, and most other endogenous integrases, fewer WD40 repeat domain WDR5 interaction sites were found in ERVK IN (2 vs. 5–12 sites each). This suggests ERVK IN has potentially shifted away from WDR5 interaction in favor of BRCA1 (or BRCT domain) interaction as a means to interact with the DDR pathway [54,71].

3.3.5. ERVK Integrase Contains Canonical Selective Autophagy Motifs

Unlike any of the exogenous betaretroviruses, only ERVK IN and some endogenous integrases contained canonical LIR motifs (ELME000368) for binding Atg8 protein family members (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 2). All endogenous INs contained nematode-specific LIR motifs (ELME000370). Additionally, most endogenous INs housed Apicomplexa-specific LIR motifs (ELME000369), whereas ERVK IN did not.

3.4. ERVK Interactome Reveals Association with a Diversity of Cellular Pathways

Based on ELMs identified in ERVK IN, a curated list of potential interacting proteins was generated and used to build an ERVK IN interactome network using STRING software (Figure 3). The ERVK IN network contained 189 nodes and 692 edges (expected number of edges 222), resulting in a significant PPI enrichment (p < 1.0 × 10−16). Only direct interactor query proteins are shown without links to second shell interactions. To illustrate key nodes and hub proteins, select network proteins were colored based on function related to DDR, cell cycle, apoptosis, cell signaling, or cellular transport. A complete list of the KEGG pathways significantly associated with the network is presented in Table A6.

3.4.1. Many DNA Damage Response Proteins Are Potential ERVK Integrase Interactors

Gene ontology (GO) biological processes that were significantly enriched in the network included cellular response to DNA damage stimulus (p < 4.4 × 10−18), DNA repair (p < 4.24 × 10−12), DNA damage checkpoint (p < 4.89 × 10−12), double-strand break repair via non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) (p < 3.57 × 10−9), double-strand break repair (p < 1.06 × 10−8), and signal transduction in response to DNA damage (p < 2.12 × 10−8). Select BRCT domain containing proteins emerged as nodes with a higher-than-average degree of connections, including BRCA1, BARD1, NBN, MDC1, RCF1, TOPBP1, TP53BP1, and PAXIP1, while PARP1 and DRKDC (DNA-PK) appear to be hub proteins between DDR and apoptosis. The ERVK IN network also displayed four prominent DDR-related FHA proteins: CHEK2, NBN, MDC1, and RNF8.

3.4.2. ERVK Integrase Likely Modulates Cell Cycle Pathways

GO biological processes that were significantly enriched in the network included regulation of cell cycle (p < 1.45 × 10−33), cell division (p < 1.12 × 10−20), regulation of cyclin-dependent serine/threonine kinase activity (p < 6.86 × 10−20), mitotic cell cycle (p < 2.78 × 10−17), regulation of apoptotic process (p < 1.45 × 10−17), and cell cycle checkpoint (p < 6.72 × 10−12). Many cyclins and 14-3-3 proteins were identified in the network and are listed in Table A5. IAP-containing protein BIRC5 (also known as survivin) was also identified, which is suggestive of negative regulation of programmed cell death pathways [72]. PLK1 and NEK2 were also tied into the cell cycle framework and are both regulators of mitosis, in addition to displaying oncogenic properties [73,74].

3.4.3. Cell Signaling Pathways Associated with the ERVK Interactome

Among the potential signaling pathways often targeted by retroviruses, ERVK IN-associated cascades emerged as Forkhead box O (FoxO) signaling [75], p53 signaling [76], ErbB signaling [77], Wnt signaling [78], modulation of kinase activity [79,80], and multiple aspects of immune signaling [81] (Figure 4). Within these pathways, prominent immune-related signaling intermediates included STAT3 [55], STAT5 [56], and TRAF2 [82]. The SH2 and SH3 containing tyrosine-protein kinase ABL1 (Abelson murine leukemia viral oncogene homolog 1 [57]) appears to be a key hub protein linking DDR and downstream signaling cascades.

3.4.4. ERVK Integrase May Utilize Specific Cellular Transport Systems

The ERVK interactome contains proteins related to cellular transport. EB1 (MAPRE1) is an end-binding (EB) protein connected with both cell cycle and signaling pathways and is functionally associated with the regulation of microtubule dynamics [83]. Adaptor protein complex 2 associated proteins (AP2M1 and CTTN) were identified and indicate a role in cargo internalization via clathrin-mediated endocytosis and actin dynamics [65,84]. Lastly, ERVK IN may interact with Pex14 and Pex13 independently of the main network for peroxisome import [63]. While these pathways were likely important for the ancestral exogenous ERVK to transverse the cell and mediate infection, it remains unclear how endogenous IN may interact with these systems.

3.5. Diseases and Pathways Implicated in the ERVK Integrase Interactome

3.5.1. Cancers

Viral carcinogenesis was the top KEGG pathway identified in the ERVK IN network analysis (strength 1.22, E value 3.7 × 10−23), with 29 of 183 proteins represented (Figure 4). KEGG pathways for several known ERVK-associated cancers were also identified, including lung cancer [85], myeloid leukemia [86], and hepatocellular carcinoma [87] (Figure 4). Glioma was also identified, yet ERVK is downregulated in this condition [88]. Aligned with cellular transformation, proteins associated with cell cycle were also over-represented in the pathway analysis, which are specifically related to the cyclin docking site ELM (DOC_CYCLIN_RxL_1) and numerous FHA domain protein interaction sites (LIG_FHA_1 and LIG_FHA_2) in ERVK IN (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2).

3.5.2. Neurological Disease

KEGG pathways for several ERVK-associated neurological conditions were identified, including ALS [9,12], Alzheimer’s disease [89], and prion disease [90] (Figure 4). Specifically, long-term potentiation and synaptic neurotransmitter release (dopaminergic, glutamatergic, cholinergic, serotonergic, and GABAergic) were associated with the ERVK IN interactome.

3.5.3. Diabetes

The role of ERVK in diabetes remains contentious [91,92,93,94]. However, network analysis suggests that the ERVK IN interactome is potentially linked to AGE-RAGE signaling in diabetic complications, insulin signaling, and insulin resistance (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

ERVK expression has been repeatedly associated with human disease states including cancer, neurological disease, and diabetes. By exploring the potential ERVK integrase interactome, we can postulate how this viral symbiont may contribute to disease pathogenesis via interaction with key proteins and pathways. Our analysis reveals that viral carcinogenesis and modulation of the DNA damage response are the most likely pathways to be pathologically associated with ERVK IN expression.
Retroviral integrase activity causes DNA lesions in the host genome as part of the proviral integration process [19]; therefore, interactions with DDR pathways are to be expected. Several DDR proteins have been shown to be essential for provirus suture into the host genome and maintenance of genome fidelity [19]. Yet, the impairment of select aspects of DDR has also been documented in exogenous retroviral infections, including HIV [95,96] and HTLV-1 [97,98]. This may be driven by the fact that NHEJ proteins also play an essential role in innate immune recognition of retroviral cytosolic ssDNA intermediates and dsDNA pre-integration complexes [98,99]. Thus, retroviruses must balance the benefits and drawbacks of DDR outcomes through the engagement and modulation of specific proteins.
BRCT domain, FHA domain, and 14-3-3 proteins work in concert during the DNA damage response (reviewed in [100]). Many of these DDR proteins are also cellular targets of retroviruses and oncogenic viruses [98,101,102,103,104]. BRCA1 BRCT domains recognize phosphopeptides based on a pSXXF motif, but XX residues and the surrounding amino acids also impact binding affinity and selectivity [105]. All the betaretroviral INs examined showed the capacity to interact with BRCT domains. However, only ERVK IN displayed a high affinity (S.F.K) BRCA1 BRCT domain binding site; the only other similar ELM structure is found in the DDR protein Fanconi anemia group J protein (FACJ/BACH1) [106]. It is also possible that dual anchoring onto the ERVK IN using both a BRCT domain and an FHA domain found in NBN or MDC1 may strengthen protein–protein interactions.
The utilization and evasion of 14-3-3 proteins are common among many viruses [104]. ERVK IN is unique in having a C-terminal RASTE motif, in addition to two other canonical arginine containing phospho-motifs recognized by 14-3-3 proteins. Given that an elevated expression of 14-3-3 proteins occurs in both cancers and neurodegenerative diseases [107,108], ERVK IN interaction with 14-3-3 protein members may be related to either modulation of the cell cycle and oncogenesis or regulation of protein aggregation, respectively. The deregulation of 14-3-3 and RAF kinase interaction can also lead to inappropriate downstream MAPK activity (associated with oncogenesis) [54,109] and may be an aspect to consider for the predicted ERVK IN network.
ABL1 appears to be a key hub protein linking DDR and downstream signaling cascades. Interestingly, DDR is known to be a rapid driver of ABL1 activation [110]. The ablation of ABL1 reduces retrovirus integration [111,112], while active ABL1 can turn on the HIV promoter independently of HIV Tat [113]. Putative interaction between ERVK IN and ABL1 may have been important for ERVK integration into germline cells, and it may additionally play a role in ERVK expression, specifically in neurodegenerative disease displaying enhanced ABL1 activity [114,115].
DDR is intimately tied to innate immune response, specifically NF-κB activation [116]. Considering ERVK’s dependence on NF-κB for driving its own expression [11], it is conceivable that ERVK IN plays a role in preparing the host cell for viral transcription. 14-3-3ϵ activity is key in driving ATM-TAK1-mediated NF-κB signaling during DDR [117,118]; thus, the predicted ERVK IN interaction with 14-3-3ϵ (YWHAE) may be a mechanism to favor viral transcription. The MAPK p38 was also predicted to both phosphorylate and bind ERVK IN. This association may be linked to p38′s regulation of inflammatory signaling, as well as its capacity to enhance the transcriptional activity of NF-κB p65 via modulation of the acetyltransferase activity of coactivator p300 [119]. Sustained NF-κB activity is linked to oncogenesis [116] and ties into the strongest ERVK IN-linked KEGG pathway: viral carcinogenesis. However, enhanced ERVK IN-associated NF-κB signaling may also fit with inflammatory and neurodegenerative conditions.
ERVK IN stability and protein turnover is likely linked to its cellular protein partnerships. In the case of HIV, binding select cellular proteins such as LEDGF/p75 and Ku70 prevents integrase proteosomal degradation [120,121]. Similarly, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) S57 phosphorylation of the core domain can make HIV IN a target for Pin1, thus enhancing its stability and activity [122,123]. In this study, Pin1′s WW domain was predicted to be an interactor based on three [ST]P motifs in the C-terminal portion of ERVK IN. This raises the possibility that similar to many other viral proteins [124], ERVK IN may be stabilized through Pin1 interaction. The functional significance of this interaction may underlie how elevated levels of ERVK IN are maintained and potentially drive pathology in select diseases, such as ALS and cancer.
Distinct from other exogenous betaretroviruses, only ERVK IN and some endogenous integrases contained canonical LIR motifs for binding Atg8 protein family members. Mammalian Atg8-like proteins include LC3 and GABARAP families, which mediate selective autophagy, as well as play essential roles in antiviral defense and innate immune signaling [125]. However, it is often observed that viruses subvert autophagy processes to avoid viral protein clearance and repurpose Atg8 proteins as well as autophagosomal membranes for viral replication [125,126]. Considering the perturbances of autophagy in neurodegenerative disease [127,128], the interaction between ERVK IN and Atg8 proteins warrants further investigation.
Consistent with genomic instability profiles in cancer [129], ALS [130], and Alzheimer’s disease [131], the ERVK interactome analysis identified each of these conditions as significant KEGG pathways. Despite differences in clinical presentation, the molecular underpinnings in cancer and neurodegenerative disease are remarkably similar and include alterations in DDR [129,130,132], 14-3-3 expression [133,134], p53 signaling [135,136], p38 signaling [137,138], and Wnt signaling [139,140]—which are all KEGG pathways enriched in the ERVK IN network. AGE-RAGE signaling was also identified as a potential pathway associated with the ERVK IN interactome. Not only is this pathway implicated in diabetic complications [141], but it also plays a role in nuclear response to DNA damage [142], carcinogenesis [143], and inflammatory neurodegenerative diseases [144]. Collectively, our results point to ERVK IN driving a pattern of pathology that, depending on cellular context, may lead to carcinogenesis, neurodegeneration, or contribute to diabetic complications. However, the engagement of DDR can also have beneficial impacts on lifespan extension, depending on tissue context and host genotype; thus, non-pathogenic effects of ERVK IN should also be considered [145,146].
Apart from the importance of putative ERVK IN interaction partners, it is also important to consider which cellular proteins were not associated with the ERVK IN interactome. One interaction that was not predicted was with LEDGF/p75, and indeed, this interactor is limited to partnership with lentiviral integrases [147,148]. Another set of DDR proteins commonly found to impact retroviral integration and replication is the DNA-PK complex [99,149]. HIV integrase directly interacts with Ku70 [120]; while ERVK IN was predicted to be phosphorylated by DNA-PKcs (PRKDC), it contained no ELMs to suggest direct interaction with Ku80 or Ku70. Another apparent difference is the use of EB proteins in microtubule trafficking for HIV and ERVK. ERVK IN contained an SxIP motif that binds EBH domains, whereas HIV capsid conversely has EB-like motifs that interact with SxIP motifs in plus-end tracking protein (+TIP) [150]. These genus-specific distinctions are likely to emerge as important considerations for therapeutic targeting strategies and imply that pharmaceuticals geared toward HIV infection may not consistently translate for use in ERVK-associated disease.
Another consideration that stems from this study is the choice and caveats of using animal models in ERVK research. A diversity of animals outside of the primate lineage are host to ERVK IN-like sequences, such as rodents, ungulates, fish, and insects. Drosophila, a common model organism, also contained ERVK IN-like elements in their genome, specifically LTR retrotransposons flea and Xanthias, as identified by FlyBase (Table A4). The transposable element Xanthias is known to be active in D. melanogaster [151,152], and it shares a degree of similarity with ERVK IN. The presence and activity of these ERVs is an important factor to consider when performing experiments.
It is shocking how little we understand of the impact endogenous viral symbionts have on cellular functioning. Herein, we have predicted that ERVK IN may participate in the modulation of cellular pathways such as DDR, cell cycle regulation, and kinase signaling cascades by way of select protein interaction motifs. The main caveat of in silico predictions is the requirement for experimental validation; while research into ERVK IN is currently underway, this study suggests there remains a myriad of disease-related betaretroviral integrase interactions to explore.

Author Contributions

Data curation, methodology, validation, investigation, and formal analysis by S.B., I.B. and R.N.D. Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, resources, visualization, and funding acquisition by R.N.D. Writing original draft preparation and review and editing by R.N.D. and I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded in part by the ALS Association (#477) and a Discovery grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, RGPIN-2016-05761). S.B. was funded by the University of Winnipeg Wiegand Biology Undergraduate Research Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, (accessed on 12 July 2021)) can be used to access sequences listed in the paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Samuel Narvey, Megan Rempel and Alex Vandenakker for their peer review of the manuscript drafts.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Dedication

This study is dedicated to patients with ALS—we are working on it!

Appendix A

Table A1. Exogenous viruses with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp search.
Table A1. Exogenous viruses with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp search.
HostSpeciesProtein NameAccession NumberDatabasePercent IdentityE ValueAlignment
Retroviridae—Betaretrovirus
Mus MusculusMouse mammary tumor virus
(MMTV)
MMTV strain BR6 Integrase, partial5CZ2_Anr56.46%3.00 × 10−71
Unnamed protein productCAA25954.1nr52.36%2.00 × 10−70
Chain A. Integrase
(Core model of the MMTV Intasome)
3JCA_Anr51.50%2.00 × 10−82
Pr160NP_056880.1nr51.11%7.00 × 10−76
Pr160 gag pro pol precursorAAA46542.1nr51.11%7.00 × 10−76
p30DU-p13PR-RT-INNP_955564.1nr51.11%2.00 × 10−76
Gag-Pro-Pol polyproteinP11283.2nr51.11%3.00 × 10−75
MMTV putative integraseAAC24859.1nr50.37%5.00 × 10−81
Gag-Pol-Pro polyprotein, partialBAA03767.1nr49.65%1.00 × 10−77
Exogenous MMTV Gag-Pro-PolAAF31469.1nr49.65%4.00 × 10−76
Endogenous MTV1 Gag-Pro-PolAAF31464.1nr49.65%4.00 × 10−76
Capra hircusEnzootic Nasal Tumor Virus
(ENTV)
Pol protein, partialAVG72436.1nr48.79%3.00 × 10−72
Pol protein, partialAVG72437.1nr48.79%3.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialAVG72438.1nr48.79%7.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialAVG72441.1nr48.39%3.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialAVG72440.1nr48.39%4.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialAVG72435.1nr48.39%2.00 × 10−70
Gag-Pro-Pol proteinQBP05340.1nr47.41%3.00 × 10−73
Pol protein, partialANG58667.1nr47.41%2.00 × 10−72
Pol proteinQEQ26602.1nr47.41%3.00 × 10−72
Pol protein, partialANG58699.1nr47.41%2.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58695.1nr47.41%2.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58691.1nr47.41%2.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58679.1nr47.41%5.00 × 10−71
Endogenous ENTV pol proteinQPG92760.1nr47.41%3.00 × 10−73
Endogenous ENTV pol proteinQPG92768.1nr47.41%1.00 × 10−72
Gag-Pro-Pol, partialAOZ60515.1nr47.04%1.00 × 10−72
Pol protein, partialANG58671.1nr47.04%1.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58683.1nr47.04%3.00 × 10−70
Pol protein, partialANG58687.1nr47.04%2.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58663.1nr47.04%8.00 × 10−71
Gag-Pro-Pol proteinANC55859.1nr46.67%5.00 × 10−73
Gag-Pro-Pol protein, partialADI50273.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−72
Gag-Pro-Pol protein, partialAOZ60519.1nr46.67%7.00 × 10−72
Pol protein, partialANG58675.1nr46.67%3.00 × 10−71
Gag-Pro-Pol fusion, partialNP_862833.2nr46.67%7.00 × 10−71
Pol protein, partialANG58659.1nr46.10%1.00 × 10−72
Macaca genus Mason-Pfizer monkey virus
(M-PMV)
Simian AIDS retrovirus SRV-1-Pol polyproteinGNLJSAnr48.30%2.00 × 10−70
Simian retrovirus SRV-5-Pol polyproteinBBG56792.1nr47.57%5.00 × 10−71
Simian retrovirus SRV-Y-Pol protein, partialBAM71050.1nr47.57%2.00 × 10−70
Ovis AriesJaagsiekte sheep retrovirus Reverse transcriptase, partialCAA77117.1nr46.67%5.00 × 10−75
Reverse transcriptase, partialCAA77113.1nr46.67%2.00 × 10−74
Pol proteinNP_041186.1nr46.30%1.00 × 10−70
BLAST databases: nr denotes non-redundant protein database. Circle symbol: denotes integrase sequences used in protein alignment in Figure 1.
Table A2. Boreoeutherian genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
Table A2. Boreoeutherian genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
SpeciesProtein NameAccession NumberDatabasePercent IdentityE Value
Homo sapiensHuman Endogenous Retrovirus K
(HERV-K/
ERVK)
Pol/env ORF (bases 3878-8257) first start codon at 4172; Xxx; putativeAAA88033.1nr100.00%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 10 Pol proteinP10266.2nr100.00%0
Gag-Pro-Pol-Env proteinAAD51793.1nr100.00%0
Pol protein, partialCAA71417.1nr100.00%2.00 × 10−101
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 11 Pol proteinQ9UQG0.2nr99.64%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 7 Pol proteinP63135.1nr99.29%0
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55918.1nr99.28%1.00 × 10−94
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55922.1nr99.28%7.00 × 10−94
Polymerase, partialAAO27434.1nr99.27%0
Gag-Pro-Pol proteinAAD51796.1nr99.17%5.00 × 10−161
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 113 Pol proteinP63132.1nr98.21%0
Polymerase, partialAAK11553.1nr98.21%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 6 Pol proteinQ9BXR3.2nr98.21%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 8 Pol proteinP63133.1nr98.21%0
Gag-Pro-Pol proteinAAD51797.1nr98.21%0
Pol proteinCAA76885.1nr97.86%0
Pol proteinCAA76879.1nr97.86%0
Polymerase, partialAAK11554.1nr97.86%0
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55928.1nr97.84%6.00 × 10−93
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55923.1nr97.84%8.00 × 10−93
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55925.1nr97.83%2.00 × 10−92
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55927.1nr97.83%3.00 × 10−92
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55914.1nr97.76%6.00 × 10−89
Pol proteinCAA76882.1nr97.50%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 19 Pol proteinQ9WJR5.2nr97.50%0
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 25 Pol proteinP63136.1nr97.50%0
Pol proteinAAL60056.1nr97.30%1.00 × 10−152
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55924.1nr97.12%2.00 × 10−92
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55926.1nr97.10%9.00 × 10−92
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55921.1nr97.10%9.00 × 10−92
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55919.1nr97.10%1.00 × 10−91
Pol/env protein, partialAET81039.1nr96.97%1.00 × 10−81
Reverse transcriptase, partialAGQ55920.1nr96.38%2.00 × 10−91
Pol proteinCAB56603.1nr90.13%2.00 × 10−132
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 18 Pol proteinQ9QC07.2nr90.13%2.00 × 10−130
hCG1808534EAW92672.1nr87.38%3.00 × 10−130
Macaca
fascicularis
PREDICTED: endogenous retrovirus group K member 8 Pol protein-likeXP_015309771.1nr83.77%2.00 × 10−127
Chlorocebus
sabaeus
Pol protein, partialBBC20786.1nr47.01%3.00 × 10−70
Oryctolagus
cuniculus
PREDICTED: endogenous retrovirus group K member 8 Pol protein-likeXP_017205812.1nr49.82%1.00 × 10−76
Marmota
marmota
PREDICTED: endogenous retrovirus group K member 11 Pol protein-likeXP_015349278.1nr47.96%4.00 × 10−71
Ochotona
princeps
Uncharacterized protein LOC105942652XP_012786727.1nr47.33%1.00 × 10−70
Mus musculus
(mouse)
Agouti-signaling protein isoform X1XP_017174599.2mo46.93%6.00 × 10−70
Contactin-5 isoform X2XP_036010832.1mo44.11%3.00 × 10−63
Contactin-5 isoform X1XP_036010831.1mo44.11%4.00 × 10−63
Contactin-5 isoform X3XP_036010833.1mo44.11%4.00 × 10−63
Protein NYNRIN-like isoform X1XP_036020530.1mo30.15%9.00 × 10−14
Uncharacterized protein Gm39701XP_011237194.2mo30.15%9.00 × 10−14
Uncharacterized protein LOC118567641, partialXP_036010828.1mo29.71%2.00 × 10−12
Fukomys
damarensis
Pol polyproteinKFO35018.1nr45.14%1.00 × 10−71
Sus scrofaTPA: uncharacterized proteinHCZ91355.1tsa61.54%2.00 × 10−65
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB33152.1tsa61.54%2.00 × 10−65
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 11 Pol protein-likeHDB62800.1tsa60.66%2.00 × 10−17
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHCZ89879.1tsa52.24%1.00 × 10−39
Nuclear autoantigenic sperm protein isoform X4HDA97069.1tsa49.06%2.00 × 10−21
Nuclear autoantigenic sperm protein isoform 2HCZ78574.1tsa48.86%5.00 × 10−15
Nuclear autoantigenic sperm protein isoform 2HDB80991.1tsa48.42%7.00 × 10−17
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHCZ87894.1tsa42.67%5.00 × 10−58
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB20633.1tsa41.78%1.00 × 10−53
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC25054.1tsa39.81%7.00 × 10−48
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDA81201.1tsa38.84%1.00 × 10−47
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X6-likeHDB13612.1tsa31.52%2.00 × 10−13
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC69173.1tsa31.07%2.00 × 10−13
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC69046.1tsa30.90%3.00 × 10−13
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X12-likeHDC79805.1tsa30.81%1.00 × 10−12
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X12-likeHDB85007.1tsa30.81%1.00 × 10−12
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X6-likeHDA96697.1tsa30.81%1.00 × 10−12
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X12-likeHDB79678.1tsa30.81%2.00 × 10−12
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X6HDB81123.1tsa30.77%1.00 × 10−11
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X6HDB82421.1tsa30.71%2.00 × 10−10
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC70342.1tsa30.41%6.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC70174.1tsa30.41%6.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC69016.1tsa30.41%6.00 × 10−12
putative protein-likeHDB95244.1tsa30.23%3.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB49716.1tsa30.23%5.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB49718.1tsa30.23%5.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC70066.1tsa30.23%5.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC69012.1tsa30.23%7.00 × 10−12
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB50090.1tsa29.82%2.00 × 10−11
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB54298.1tsa29.65%1.00 × 10−11
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X3-likeHDC79806.1tsa29.65%2.00 × 10−11
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 25 PolHCZ79815.1tsa29.65%3.00 × 10−11
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X2-likeHDC79761.1tsa29.59%1.00 × 10−10
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 25 PolHDA78544.1tsa29.24%4.00 × 10−11
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 25 PolHDA79987.1tsa29.24%7.00 × 10−11
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDA79350.1tsa29.24%9.00 × 10−11
Endogenous retrovirus group K member 25 PolHDA79988.1tsa29.24%9.00 × 10−11
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDA79349.1tsa29.24%1.00 × 10−10
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDC13198.1tsa29.24%1.00 × 10−10
Transmembrane protein 161B isoform X6-likeHDB88647.1tsa29.07%3.00 × 10−11
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDA61679.1tsa29.07%5.00 × 10−11
TPA: uncharacterized proteinHDB82700.1tsa29.07%1.00 × 10−10
Equus asinusPREDICTED: endogenous retrovirus group K member 8 Pol protein-likeXP_014715024.1nr56.46%3.00 × 10−95
Capra hircusPREDICTED: LOW QUALITY
PROTEIN: endogenous retrovirus group K member 18 Pol protein-like
XP_017905435.1nr47.41%3.00 × 10−71
Ovis ariesPol proteinABV71120.1nr47.04%2.00 × 10−72
Pol proteinABV71104.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−71
Pol proteinABV71084.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−71
Pol proteinABV71074.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−71
Pol proteinABV71079.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−71
Pol proteinABV71069.1nr46.67%4.00 × 10−71
Pol protein (endogenous virus)AST51848.1nr46.67%5.00 × 10−71
Pol proteinABV71094.1nr46.30%2.00 × 10−70
BLAST databases: nr = non-redundant protein database; mo = model organisms database; tsa = transcriptomics shotgun analysis non-redundant database. TPA = third party annotation.
Table A3. Euteleostomi genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
Table A3. Euteleostomi genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
SpeciesProtein NameAccession NumberData basePercent IdentityE Value
Micrurus
lemniscatus
carvalhoi
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA32932.1tsa58.47%2.00 × 10−40
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA32929.1tsa57.63%6.00 × 10−40
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA32939.1tsa48.29%4.00 × 10−54
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA32941.1tsa44.00%1.00 × 10−26
Zosterops
borbonicus
Hypothetical protein HGM15179_011615TRZ15504.1nr46.97%3.00 × 10−71
Zonotrichia
albicollis
Uncharacterized protein LOC106629581XP_014125095.1nr46.24%1.00 × 10−71
Micrurus
corallinus
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA64555.1tsa46.21%2.00 × 10−26
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA64556.1tsa45.08%2.00 × 10−21
Micrurus
lemniscatus lemniscatus
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA89554.1tsa44.57%4.00 × 10−18
Hypothetical protein, partialLAA89545.1tsa43.75%1.00 × 10−23
Bird
metagenome
Gag-Pro-Pol polyprotein, partialMBY11728.1tsa44.31%3.00 × 10−43
Gallirallus
okinawae
Hypothetical protein, partialLAC45429.1tsa43.96%3.00 × 10−57
Fundulus
heteroclitus
Integrase core domain, partialJAQ81073.1tsa35.05%2.00 × 10−11
Danio rerio
(zebrafish)
Uncharacterized protein LOC108190699XP_017212567.1mo33.64%4.00 × 10−12
Uncharacterized protein K02A2.6-likeXP_021334762.1mo30.18%4.00 × 10−11
Uncharacterized protein K02A2.6-likeXP_017210639.2mo29.20%8.00 × 10−9
Uncharacterized protein LOC101886116XP_021327301.1mo28.47%1.00 × 10−5
Uncharacterized protein LOC110439859XP_021332670.1mo28.17%0.001
Uncharacterized protein K02A2.6-likeXP_003199161.1mo27.78%5.00 × 10−10
Uncharacterized protein K02A2.6-likeXP_002663225.3mo27.78%8.00 × 10−10
Uncharacterized protein LOC110438047XP_021323131.1mo26.43%0.006
Nothobranchius korthausaeUncharacterized proteinSBQ67355.1tsa32.02%8.00 × 10−11
Nothobranchius kadleciUncharacterized proteinSBP84572.1tsa32.00%8.00 × 10−11
Nothobranchius furzeriUncharacterized proteinSBS54329.1tsa31.25%5.00 × 10−13
Nothobranchius
rachovii
Uncharacterized proteinSBS11479.1tsa30.07%2.00 × 10−10
BLAST databases: nr = non-redundant protein database; mo = model organisms database; tsa = transcriptomics shotgun analysis non-redundant database.
Table A4. Nephrozoa (non-boreoeutherian) genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
Table A4. Nephrozoa (non-boreoeutherian) genomes with similarity to ERVK integrase based on BLASTp searches.
SpeciesProtein NameAccession NumberData basePercent IdentityE Value
Onchocerca flexuosaIntegrase core domain proteinOZC05619.1nr45.68%6.00 × 10−73
Ixodes ricinusPutative tf2-11 polyproteinMXV00662.1tsa35.81%2.00 × 10−10
Putative tick transposon, partialJAP73380.1tsa30.67%1.00 × 10−11
Putative tick transposon, partialJAR90689.1tsa30.67%6.00 × 10−11
Putative bell all, partialJAA73039.1tsa30.00%2.00 × 10−10
Putative gypsy11-i sp, partialJAP69562.1tsa30.00%2.00 × 10−10
Putative tick transposon, partialJAR92200.1tsa28.06%4.00 × 10−13
Putative transposon tf2-9 polyproteinMXV00940.1tsa27.37%9.00 × 10−13
Littorina littoreaTransposon Ty3-G Gag-Pol polyproteinMBX96210.1tsa35.54%4.00 × 10−12
Transposon Ty3-I Gag-Pol polyproteinMBX97975.1tsa30.00%4.00 × 10−14
Ixodes scapularisPutative tick transposon, partialMOY42200.1tsa34.29%4.00 × 10−12
Putative tick transposon, partialMOY42203.1tsa32.67%2.00 × 10−13
Putative tick transposon, partialMOY42202.1tsa32.67%7.00 × 10−13
Putative gypsy-17 ga-i, partialMOY42236.1tsa31.09%2.00 × 10−12
Hypothetical protein, partialMOY42219.1tsa30.00%6.00 × 10−11
Putative gypsy11-i sp, partialMOY42209.1tsa29.17%7.00 × 10−12
Putative gypsy21-i sp, partialMOY42223.1tsa29.17%8.00 × 10−12
Putative tick transposon, partialMOY42227.1tsa28.50%4.00 × 10−13
Putative tick transposon, partialMOY42214.1tsa28.25%9.00 × 10−11
Putative gypsy-27 xt-i, partialMOY35588.1tsa26.44%1.00 × 10−10
Lygus hesperusRetrotransposable element Tf2 protein type 3, partialJAQ12551.1tsa33.58%6.00 × 10−13
Uncharacterized proteinJAG20083.1tsa33.58%6.00 × 10−13
Hypothetical protein, partial CM83_13537, partialJAG31779.1tsa29.93%5.00 × 10−11
Uncharacterized protein, partial K02A2.6, partialJAG32119.1tsa28.87%1.00 × 10−11
Uncharacterized protein, partial K02A2.6, partialJAG38901.1tsa26.82%8.00 × 10−12
Amblyomma sculptumPutative gypsy-7 adi-i, partialJAU00762.1tsa32.88%1.00 × 10−12
Putative tick transposon, partialJAU00733.1tsa30.00%2.00 × 10−10
Putative tick transposon, partialJAU00744.1tsa30.00%2.00 × 10−10
Rhipicephalus
microplus
Putative tick transposonNIE47479.1tsa32.45%4.00 × 10−11
Strongylocentrotus purpuratusIntegrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS08875.1tsa32.19%2.00 × 10−16
Integrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS08729.1tsa32.03%7.00 × 10−13
Integrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS14051.1tsa30.57%2.00 × 10−13
Reverse transcriptase domain-containing proteinMOS08491.1tsa30.57%2.00 × 10−13
Reverse transcriptase domain-containing proteinMOS11069.1tsa29.93%5.00 × 10−12
Integrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS08728.1tsa29.76%2.00 × 10−10
Integrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS08842.1tsa28.57%4.00 × 10−11
Integrase, catalytic core containing proteinMOS08745.1tsa24.12%2.00 × 10−10
Ornithodoros turicataPutative transposon tf2-9 polyproteinMBY06492.1tsa32.00%1.00 × 10−10
Ornithodoros moubataEsterase D, partialJAW02195.1tsa29.86%2.00 × 10−10
Photinus pyralisHypothetical proteinJAV53763.1tsa29.20%2.00 × 10−13
Lepeophtheirus
salmonis
Uncharacterized protein K02A2.6like, partialCDW28658.1tsa28.28%1.00 × 10−10
Drosophila
melanogaster
(Fruit fly)
Unnamed protein productCAA30503.1nr-DM28.87%0.004
Sd02026pAAK84933.1nr-DM28.57%3.00 × 10−9
Blastopia polyproteinCAA81643.1nr-DM28.19%2.00 × 10−9
PolyproteinACI62137.1nr-DM28.00%2.00 × 10−4
BLAST databases: nr = non-redundant protein database; nr-DM = non-redundant protein database with Drosophila specified as species search constraint; tsa = transcriptomics shotgun analysis non-redundant database.
Table A5. List of query proteins for STRING analysis based on ELM interaction motifs in ERVK integrase.
Table A5. List of query proteins for STRING analysis based on ELM interaction motifs in ERVK integrase.
CategoryELMSTRING Predicted Interactor
(Gene Name)
Network
CleavageCLV_C14_Caspase3-7CASP3
CASP7
CLV_PCSK_KEX2_1
CLV_PCSK_PC1ET2_1
CLV_PCSK_SKI1_1
PCSK1
PCSK2
PCSK3
PCSK4
PCSK5
PCSK6
PCSK7
PCSK8
PCSK9
Docking siteDOC_CYCLIN_RXL_1CCNA1
CCNA2
CCNB1
CCNB2
CCNB3
CCNC
CCND1
CCND2
CCND3
CCNE1
CCNE2
CCNF
CCNG1
CCNG2
CCNH
CCNI
CCNI2
CCNJ
CCNJL
CCNK
CCNL1
CCNL2
CCNO
CCNP
CCNT1
CCNT2
CCNY
CCNYL1
CNTD1
DOC_MAPK_MEF2A_6MAPK1
MAPK3
MAPK7
MAPK11
MAPK14
DOC_PP1_RVXF_1PPP1CA
PPP1CB
PPP1CC
PPP3CA
PPP3CB
PPP3CC
DOC_PP2B_LxvP_1PPP3R1
DOC_USP7_MATH_1
DOC_USP7_UBL2_3
USP7
DOC_WW_Pin1_4PCIF1
PIN1
SENP6
LigandLIG_14-3-3_CanoR_1
LIG_14-3-3_CterR_2
SFN
YWHAB
YWHAE
YWHAG
YWHAH
YWHAQ
YWHAZ
LIG_BIR_II_1BIRC2
BIRC3
BIRC5
BIRC6
BIRC7
NAIP
XIAP
LIG_BRCT_BRCA1_1BARD1
BRCA1
CTDP1
DNTT
ECT2
LIG4
MCPH1
MDC1
NBN
PARP1
PARP4
PAXIP1
PES1
RBPJ
REV1
RFC1
TOPBP1
TP53BP1
XRCC1
LIG_FHA_1
LIG_FHA_2
AGGF1
APLF
APTX
CEP170
CEP170B
CHEK2
CHFR
FHAD1
FOXK1
FOXK2
KIF13A
KIF13B
KIF14
KIF16B
KIF1A
KIF1B
KIF1C
MCRS1
MDC1
MKI67
MLLT4
NBN
PHF12
PPP1R8
RNF8
SLC4A1AP
SLMAP
SNIP1
STARD9
TCF19
TIFA
TIFAB
LIG_CSL_BTD_1CHEK2
MRC1
RAD9A
XRCC1
XRCC4
LIG_LIR_Gen_1
LIG_LIR_Nem_4
GABARAP
GABARAPL1
GABARAPL2
MAP1LC3A
MAP1LC3B
MAP1LC3B2
MAP1LC3C
LIG_Pex14_1PEX13
PEX14
LIG_SH2_PTP2PLCG1
PTPN11
LIG_SH2_SRCBLK
FGR
FRK
FYN
HCK
LCK
LYN
SRC
YES1
LIG_SH2_STAP1STAP1
LIG_TYR_ITIMABL1
ABL2
FYN
LCK
MATK
PI3KCA
PLCG1
SH2D1A
SHF
PTPN6
PTPN11
SRC
SYK
LIG_SH2_STAT3STAT3
LIG_SH2_STAT5STAT5A
STAT5B
LIG_SH3_3ARHGEF7
CTTN
LIG_SxIP_EBH_1MAPRE1
MAPRE2
MAPRE3
LIG_TRAF2_1TRAF2
LIG_WD40_WDR5_VDV_2WDR5
ModificationMOD_CK1_1CSNK1A1
MOD_CK2_1CSNK2A1
MOD_GSK3_1GSK3A
GSK3B
MOD_N-GLC_1DDOST
MOD_NEK2_1NEK2
MOD_PIKK_1ATM
ATR
mTOR
PRKDC
SMG1
TRRAP
MOD_PKA_2PAK1
PRKACA
PRKACB
PRKACG
PRKCA
PRKCB
PRKCE
PRKCG
PRKCH
PRKCI
PRKCQ
PRKCZ
MOD_Plk_1
MOD_Plk_4
PLK1
PLK2
PLK3
PLK4
MOD_ProDKin_1MAPK11
MAPK12
MAPK13
MAPK14
MOD_SUMO_rev_2SUMO2
TargetingTRG_ENDOCYTIC_2AP1M1
AP2M1
AP3M1
AP3M2
AP4M1
AP5M1
ARCN1
FCHO1
FCHO2
SGIP1
STON1
STON2
TRG_Pf-PMV_PEXEL_1None
Circle symbol: denotes protein depicted in network analysis in Figure 3.
Table A6. Full list of KEGG pathways identified in the STRING analysis of the ERVK integrase interactome.
Table A6. Full list of KEGG pathways identified in the STRING analysis of the ERVK integrase interactome.
KEGG Term IDTerm DescriptionObserved Gene CountBackground Gene CountStrengthFalse Discovery Rate
hsa04218Cellular senescence281561.272.30 × 10−23
hsa05203Viral carcinogenesis291831.213.47 × 10−23
hsa04110Cell cycle251231.322.38 × 10−22
hsa04114Oocyte meiosis231161.312.13 × 10−20
hsa05169Epstein–Barr virus infection241941.114.01 × 10−17
hsa05205Proteoglycans in cancer231951.084.79 × 10−16
hsa04650Natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity191241.23.96 × 10−15
hsa04068FoxO signaling pathway191301.187.58 × 10−15
hsa04750Inflammatory mediator regulation of TRP channels17921.288.12 × 10−15
hsa05167Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection211831.071.30 × 10−14
hsa04720Long-term potentiation15641.381.77 × 10−14
hsa05161Hepatitis B191421.142.19 × 10−14
hsa05206MicroRNAs in cancer191491.124.49 × 10−14
hsa04370VEGF signaling pathway14591.391.11 × 10−13
hsa04660T cell receptor signaling pathway16991.222.39 × 10−13
hsa04012ErbB signaling pathway15831.273.37 × 10−13
hsa04611Platelet activation171231.153.37 × 10−13
hsa04921Oxytocin signaling pathway181491.094.19 × 10−13
hsa04115p53 signaling pathway14681.334.53 × 10−13
hsa05200Pathways in cancer295150.766.20 × 10−13
hsa05166HTLV-I infection212500.941.82 × 10−12
hsa04933AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications15981.22.24 × 10−12
hsa04510Focal adhesion1919712.57 × 10−12
hsa04659Th17 cell differentiation151021.183.46 × 10−12
hsa05031Amphetamine addiction13651.313.95 × 10−12
hsa04728Dopaminergic synapse161281.114.97 × 10−12
hsa04658Th1 and Th2 cell differentiation14881.217.29 × 10−12
hsa05165Human papillomavirus infection223170.851.27 × 10−11
hsa04914Progesterone-mediated oocyte maturation14941.191.52 × 10−11
hsa04310Wnt signaling pathway161431.062.02 × 10−11
hsa04390Hippo signaling pathway161521.044.56 × 10−11
hsa04062Chemokine signaling pathway171810.995.10 × 10−11
hsa04917Prolactin signaling pathway12691.251.03 × 10−10
hsa04662B cell receptor signaling pathway12711.241.35 × 10−10
hsa04919Thyroid hormone signaling pathway141151.11.47 × 10−10
hsa04064NF-kappa B signaling pathway13931.161.57 × 10−10
hsa04270Vascular smooth muscle contraction141191.082.11 × 10−10
hsa04360Axon guidance161730.982.24 × 10−10
hsa05162Measles141331.047.76 × 10−10
hsa05223Non-small cell lung cancer11661.239.08 × 10−10
hsa04666Fc gamma R-mediated phagocytosis12891.141.18 × 10−9
hsa04380Osteoclast differentiation131241.033.48 × 10−9
hsa01521EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance11781.164.18 × 10−9
hsa04010MAPK signaling pathway182930.85.87 × 10−9
hsa04931Insulin resistance121071.067.37 × 10−9
hsa04910Insulin signaling pathway1313417.61 × 10−9
hsa04724Glutamatergic synapse121121.041.14 × 10−8
hsa04151PI3K-Akt signaling pathway193480.751.17 × 10−8
hsa04912GnRH signaling pathway11881.111.17 × 10−8
hsa04664Fc epsilon RI signaling pathway10671.191.30 × 10−8
hsa04071Sphingolipid signaling pathway121161.031.51 × 10−8
hsa04722Neurotrophin signaling pathway121161.031.51 × 10−8
hsa01522Endocrine resistance11951.082.24 × 10−8
hsa04014Ras signaling pathway152280.835.08 × 10−8
hsa04210Apoptosis121350.966.74 × 10−8
hsa05152Tuberculosis131720.891.01 × 10−7
hsa04540Gap junction10871.071.11 × 10−7
hsa05221Acute myeloid leukemia9661.151.42 × 10−7
hsa05214Glioma9681.131.74 × 10−7
hsa05222Small cell lung cancer10921.051.74 × 10−7
hsa01524Platinum drug resistance9701.122.13 × 10−7
hsa04215Apoptosis—multiple species7311.372.13 × 10−7
hsa04926Relaxin signaling pathway111300.943.72 × 10−7
hsa04015Rap1 signaling pathway132030.825.46 × 10−7
hsa04960Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption7371.295.77 × 10−7
hsa04668TNF signaling pathway101080.986.23 × 10−7
hsa04261Adrenergic signaling in cardiomyocytes111390.916.58 × 10−7
hsa05145Toxoplasmosis101090.986.58 × 10−7
hsa04725Cholinergic synapse101110.977.54 × 10−7
hsa05120Epithelial cell signaling in Helicobacter pylori infection8661.11.53 × 10−6
hsa04340Hedgehog signaling pathway7461.21.97 × 10−6
hsa04961Endocrine and other factor-regulated calcium reabsorption7471.192.22 × 10−6
hsa04066HIF-1 signaling pathway9980.982.44 × 10−6
hsa04520Adherens junction8711.062.44 × 10−6
hsa04916Melanogenesis9980.982.44 × 10−6
hsa05225Hepatocellular carcinoma111630.842.56 × 10−6
hsa04621NOD-like receptor signaling pathway111660.832.99 × 10−6
hsa05014Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)7501.162.99 × 10−6
hsa05220Chronic myeloid leukemia8761.043.62 × 10−6
hsa05020Prion diseases6331.274.44 × 10−6
hsa04020Calcium signaling pathway111790.85.69 × 10−6
hsa04670Leukocyte transendothelial migration91120.926.16 × 10−6
hsa04726Serotonergic synapse91120.926.16 × 10−6
hsa04723Retrograde endocannabinoid signaling101480.847.20 × 10−6
hsa04727GABAergic synapse8880.979.28 × 10−6
hsa04934Cushing’s syndrome101530.839.30 × 10−6
hsa04924Renin secretion7631.061.09 × 10−5
hsa04024cAMP signaling pathway111950.761.14 × 10−5
hsa04657IL-17 signaling pathway8920.951.20 × 10−5
hsa04022cGMP-PKG signaling pathway101600.811.28 × 10−5
hsa04140Autophagy—animal91250.871.28 × 10−5
hsa04630Jak-STAT signaling pathway101600.811.28 × 10−5
hsa04713Circadian entrainment8930.951.28 × 10−5
hsa05146Amoebiasis8940.941.32 × 10−5
hsa05215Prostate cancer8970.931.62 × 10−5
hsa05231Choline metabolism in cancer8980.921.72 × 10−5
hsa04371Apelin signaling pathway91330.841.94 × 10−5
hsa04930Type II diabetes mellitus6461.132.04 × 10−5
hsa03450Non-homologous end-joining4131.53.50 × 10−5
hsa04072Phospholipase D signaling pathway91450.813.61 × 10−5
hsa05226Gastric cancer91470.83.96 × 10−5
hsa05210Colorectal cancer7850.935.70 × 10−5
hsa04217Necroptosis91550.785.77 × 10−5
hsa04730Long-term depression6601.017.67 × 10−5
hsa04925Aldosterone synthesis and secretion7930.899.48 × 10−5
hsa04530Tight junction91670.749.70 × 10−5
hsa05131Shigellosis6630.999.70 × 10−5
hsa05010Alzheimer’s disease91680.749.98 × 10−5
hsa05164Influenza A91680.749.98 × 10−5
hsa05160Hepatitis C81310.80.00011
hsa03440Homologous recombination5401.110.00012
hsa04922Glucagon signaling pathway71000.860.00014
hsa05140Leishmaniasis6700.950.00016
hsa05168Herpes simplex infection91810.710.00016
hsa04971Gastric acid secretion6720.930.00018
hsa04918Thyroid hormone synthesis6730.930.00019
hsa05133Pertussis6740.920.0002
hsa05212Pancreatic cancer6740.920.0002
hsa05224Breast cancer81470.750.00021
hsa04150mTOR signaling pathway81480.750.00022
hsa05110Vibrio cholerae infection5481.030.00025
hsa04810Regulation of actin cytoskeleton92050.660.00037
hsa04911Insulin secretion6840.870.00037
hsa05130Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection5530.990.00037
hsa04970Salivary secretion6860.860.00041
hsa05416Viral myocarditis5560.960.00046
hsa05032Morphine addiction6910.830.00053
hsa05213Endometrial cancer5580.950.00053
hsa04915Estrogen signaling pathway71330.730.00063
hsa05418Fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis71330.730.00063
hsa04213Longevity regulating pathway—multiple species5610.930.00064
hsa04550Signaling pathways regulating pluripotency of stem cells71380.720.00076
hsa05211Renal cell carcinoma5680.880.001
hsa04920Adipocytokine signaling pathway5690.870.0011
hsa05219Bladder cancer44110.0013
hsa04211Longevity regulating pathway5880.770.0029
hsa04923Regulation of lipolysis in adipocytes4530.890.0031
hsa04120Ubiquitin mediated proteolysis61340.660.0033
hsa04070Phosphatidylinositol signaling system5970.720.0043
hsa05034Alcoholism61420.640.0043
hsa05142Chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis)51010.710.005
hsa04620Toll-like receptor signaling pathway51020.70.0051
hsa04932Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)61490.620.0053
hsa05230Central carbon metabolism in cancer4650.80.0059
hsa03410Base excision repair3330.970.0066
hsa05143African trypanosomiasis3340.960.0071
hsa04622RIG-I-like receptor signaling pathway4700.770.0075
hsa05218Melanoma4720.760.0081
hsa05216Thyroid cancer3370.920.0087
hsa05202Transcriptional misregulation in cancer61690.560.0091
hsa04152AMPK signaling pathway51200.630.0093
hsa04962Vasopressin-regulated water reabsorption3440.850.0132
hsa05132Salmonella infection4840.690.0132
hsa03015mRNA surveillance pathway4890.670.0157
hsa04913Ovarian steroidogenesis3490.80.0171
hsa05030Cocaine addiction3490.80.0171
hsa03460Fanconi anemia pathway3510.780.0187
hsa05134Legionellosis3540.760.0215
hsa04137Mitophagy—animal3630.690.0314
hsa04714Thermogenesis62280.430.0314
hsa04927Cortisol synthesis and secretion3630.690.0314
hsa04976Bile secretion3710.640.0413
hsa04136Autophagy—other2300.840.045

References

  1. Christiaansen, A.; Varga, S.M.; Spencer, J.V. Viral manipulation of the host immune response. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2015, 36, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. McLean, J.E.; Ruck, A.; Shirazian, A.; Pooyaei-Mehr, F.; Zakeri, Z.F. Viral manipulation of cell death. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008, 14, 198–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Garcia-Etxebarria, K.; Sistiaga-Poveda, M.; Jugo, B.M. Endogenous retroviruses in domestic animals. Curr. Genom. 2014, 15, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Xu, X.; Zhao, H.; Gong, Z.; Han, G.Z. Endogenous retroviruses of non-avian/mammalian vertebrates illuminate diversity and deep history of retroviruses. PLoS Pathog. 2018, 14, e1007072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nelson, P.N.; Carnegie, P.R.; Martin, J.; Davari Ejtehadi, H.; Hooley, P.; Roden, D.; Rowland-Jones, S.; Warren, P.; Astley, J.; Murray, P.G. Demystified. Human endogenous retroviruses. Mol. Pathol. 2003, 56, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mayer, J.; Meese, E. Human endogenous retroviruses in the primate lineage and their influence on host genomes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2005, 110, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hohn, O.; Hanke, K.; Bannert, N. HERV-K(HML-2), the Best Preserved Family of HERVs: Endogenization, Expression, and Implications in Health and Disease. Front. Oncol. 2013, 3, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Downey, R.F.; Sullivan, F.J.; Wang-Johanning, F.; Ambs, S.; Giles, F.J.; Glynn, S.A. Human endogenous retrovirus K and cancer: Innocent bystander or tumorigenic accomplice? Int. J. Cancer 2015, 137, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Douville, R.; Liu, J.; Rothstein, J.; Nath, A. Identification of active loci of a human endogenous retrovirus in neurons of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann. Neurol. 2011, 69, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Manghera, M.; Ferguson-Parry, J.; Douville, R.N. TDP-43 regulates endogenous retrovirus-K viral protein accumulation. Neurobiol. Dis. 2016, 94, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Manghera, M.; Ferguson-Parry, J.; Lin, R.; Douville, R.N. NF-kappaB and IRF1 Induce Endogenous Retrovirus K Expression via Interferon-Stimulated Response Elements in Its 5′ Long Terminal Repeat. J. Virol. 2016, 90, 9338–9349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Arru, G.; Mameli, G.; Deiana, G.A.; Rassu, A.L.; Piredda, R.; Sechi, E.; Caggiu, E.; Bo, M.; Nako, E.; Urso, D.; et al. Humoral immunity response to human endogenous retroviruses K/W differentiates between amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and other neurological diseases. Eur. J. Neurol. 2018, 25, e1076–e1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Romer, C. Viruses and Endogenous Retroviruses as Roots for Neuroinflammation and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 648629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Greenig, M. HERVs, immunity, and autoimmunity: Understanding the connection. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Vincendeau, M.; Gottesdorfer, I.; Schreml, J.M.; Wetie, A.G.; Mayer, J.; Greenwood, A.D.; Helfer, M.; Kramer, S.; Seifarth, W.; Hadian, K.; et al. Modulation of human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) transcription during persistent and de novo HIV-1 infection. Retrovirology 2015, 12, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pilie, P.G.; Tang, C.; Mills, G.B.; Yap, T.A. State-of-the-art strategies for targeting the DNA damage response in cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 16, 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Penndorf, D.; Witte, O.W.; Kretz, A. DNA plasticity and damage in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neural Regen. Res. 2018, 13, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gao, F.B.; Almeida, S.; Lopez-Gonzalez, R. Dysregulated molecular pathways in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia spectrum disorder. EMBO J. 2017, 36, 2931–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kessl, J.J.; Kutluay, S.B.; Townsend, D.; Rebensburg, S.; Slaughter, A.; Larue, R.C.; Shkriabai, N.; Bakouche, N.; Fuchs, J.R.; Bieniasz, P.D.; et al. HIV-1 Integrase Binds the Viral RNA Genome and Is Essential during Virion Morphogenesis. Cell 2016, 166, 1257–1268.e1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lesbats, P.; Engelman, A.N.; Cherepanov, P. Retroviral DNA Integration. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 12730–12757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Daniel, R.; Kao, G.; Taganov, K.; Greger, J.G.; Favorova, O.; Merkel, G.; Yen, T.J.; Katz, R.A.; Skalka, A.M. Evidence that the retroviral DNA integration process triggers an ATR-dependent DNA damage response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 4778–4783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Skalka, A.M.; Katz, R.A. Retroviral DNA integration and the DNA damage response. Cell Death Differ. 2005, 12 (Suppl. S1), 971–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Bray, S.; Turnbull, M.; Hebert, S.; Douville, R.N. Insight into the ERVK Integrase—Propensity for DNA Damage. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kitamura, Y.; Ayukawa, T.; Ishikawa, T.; Kanda, T.; Yoshiike, K. Human endogenous retrovirus K10 encodes a functional integrase. J. Virol. 1996, 70, 3302–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Van Maele, B.; Busschots, K.; Vandekerckhove, L.; Christ, F.; Debyser, Z. Cellular co-factors of HIV-1 integration. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2006, 31, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Christ, F.; Debyser, Z. The LEDGF/p75 integrase interaction, a novel target for anti-HIV therapy. Virology 2013, 435, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Studamire, B.; Goff, S.P. Interactions of host proteins with the murine leukemia virus integrase. Viruses 2010, 2, 1110–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jayappa, K.D.; Ao, Z.; Wang, X.; Mouland, A.J.; Shekhar, S.; Yang, X.; Yao, X. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 employs the cellular dynein light chain 1 protein for reverse transcription through interaction with its integrase protein. J. Virol. 2015, 89, 3497–3511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ryan, E.L.; Hollingworth, R.; Grand, R.J. Activation of the DNA Damage Response by RNA Viruses. Biomolecules 2016, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Suzuki, Y.; Craigie, R. The road to chromatin—Nuclear entry of retroviruses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Suzuki, Y.; Chew, M.L. Role of host-encoded proteins in restriction of retroviral integration. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Daniel, R.; Greger, J.G.; Katz, R.A.; Taganov, K.D.; Wu, X.; Kappes, J.C.; Skalka, A.M. Evidence that stable retroviral transduction and cell survival following DNA integration depend on components of the nonhomologous end joining repair pathway. J. Virol. 2004, 78, 8573–8581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Turlure, F.; Devroe, E.; Silver, P.A.; Engelman, A. Human cell proteins and human immunodeficiency virus DNA integration. Front. Biosci. 2004, 9, 3187–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Cooper, A.; Garcia, M.; Petrovas, C.; Yamamoto, T.; Koup, R.A.; Nabel, G.J. HIV-1 causes CD4 cell death through DNA-dependent protein kinase during viral integration. Nature 2013, 498, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Mourad, R.; Ginalski, K.; Legube, G.; Cuvier, O. Predicting double-strand DNA breaks using epigenome marks or DNA at kilobase resolution. Genome Biol. 2018, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Stetson, D.B.; Ko, J.S.; Heidmann, T.; Medzhitov, R. Trex1 prevents cell-intrinsic initiation of autoimmunity. Cell 2008, 134, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Zhang, J.; Scadden, D.T.; Crumpacker, C.S. Primitive hematopoietic cells resist HIV-1 infection via p21. J. Clin. Investig. 2007, 117, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ran, X.; Ao, Z.; Olukitibi, T.; Yao, X. Characterization of the Role of Host Cellular Factor Histone Deacetylase 10 during HIV-1 Replication. Viruses 2019, 12, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ali, H.; Mano, M.; Braga, L.; Naseem, A.; Marini, B.; Vu, D.M.; Collesi, C.; Meroni, G.; Lusic, M.; Giacca, M. Cellular TRIM33 restrains HIV-1 infection by targeting viral integrase for proteasomal degradation. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Mulder, L.C.; Chakrabarti, L.A.; Muesing, M.A. Interaction of HIV-1 integrase with DNA repair protein hRad18. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 27489–27493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Van Maele, B.; Debyser, Z. HIV-1 integration: An interplay between HIV-1 integrase, cellular and viral proteins. AIDS Rev. 2005, 7, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Anisenko, A.N.; Knyazhanskaya, E.S.; Zalevsky, A.O.; Agapkina, J.Y.; Sizov, A.I.; Zatsepin, T.S.; Gottikh, M.B. Characterization of HIV-1 integrase interaction with human Ku70 protein and initial implications for drug targeting. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. BLAST. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/ (accessed on 12 July 2021).
  45. Rosindell, J.; Harmon, L.J. OneZoom: A fractal explorer for the tree of life. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10, e1001406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Kearse, M.; Moir, R.; Wilson, A.; Stones-Havas, S.; Cheung, M.; Sturrock, S.; Buxton, S.; Cooper, A.; Markowitz, S.; Duran, C.; et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 1647–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lu, S.; Wang, J.; Chitsaz, F.; Derbyshire, M.K.; Geer, R.C.; Gonzales, N.R.; Gwadz, M.; Hurwitz, D.I.; Marchler, G.H.; Song, J.S.; et al. CDD/SPARCLE: The conserved domain database in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, D265–D268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Kumar, M.; Gouw, M.; Michael, S.; Sámano-Sánchez, H.; Pancsa, R.; Glavina, J.; Diakogianni, A.; Valverde, J.A.; Bukirova, D.; Čalyševa, J.; et al. ELM-the eukaryotic linear motif resource in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, D296–D306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Lee, Y.M.; Liou, Y.C. Gears-In-Motion: The Interplay of WW and PPIase Domains in Pin1. Front. Oncol. 2018, 8, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ramos, F.; Villoria, M.T.; Alonso-Rodriguez, E.; Clemente-Blanco, A. Role of protein phosphatases PP1, PP2A, PP4 and Cdc14 in the DNA damage response. Cell Stress 2019, 3, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Knippschild, U.; Kruger, M.; Richter, J.; Xu, P.; Garcia-Reyes, B.; Peifer, C.; Halekotte, J.; Bakulev, V.; Bischof, J. The CK1 Family: Contribution to Cellular Stress Response and Its Role in Carcinogenesis. Front. Oncol. 2014, 4, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Fry, A.M.; O’Regan, L.; Sabir, S.R.; Bayliss, R. Cell cycle regulation by the NEK family of protein kinases. J. Cell Sci. 2012, 125, 4423–4433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Kumar, S.; Sharma, G.; Chakraborty, C.; Sharma, A.R.; Kim, J. Regulatory functional territory of PLK-1 and their substrates beyond mitosis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 37942–37962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Reinhardt, H.C.; Yaffe, M.B. Phospho-Ser/Thr-binding domains: Navigating the cell cycle and DNA damage response. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, X.; Long, J.E. STAT3 roles in viral infection: Antiviral or proviral? Future Virol. 2018, 13, 557–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rani, A.; Murphy, J.J. STAT5 in Cancer and Immunity. J. Interferon Cytokine Res. 2016, 36, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mahajan, K.; Mahajan, N.P. Cross talk of tyrosine kinases with the DNA damage signaling pathways. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 10588–10601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Teyra, J.; Huang, H.; Jain, S.; Guan, X.; Dong, A.; Liu, Y.; Tempel, W.; Min, J.; Tong, Y.; Kim, P.M.; et al. Comprehensive Analysis of the Human SH3 Domain Family Reveals a Wide Variety of Non-canonical Specificities. Structure 2017, 25, 1598–1610.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Lalaoui, N.; Vaux, D.L. Recent advances in understanding inhibitor of apoptosis proteins. F1000Research 2018, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, H.; Li, L.; Voss, C.; Wang, F.; Liu, J.; Li, S.S. A Comprehensive Immunoreceptor Phosphotyrosine-based Signaling Network Revealed by Reciprocal Protein-Peptide Array Screening. Mol. Cell Proteom. 2015, 14, 1846–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Beurel, E.; Grieco, S.F.; Jope, R.S. Glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3): Regulation, actions, and diseases. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 148, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Canovas, B.; Nebreda, A.R. Diversity and versatility of p38 kinase signalling in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2021, 22, 346–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Covill-Cooke, C.; Toncheva, V.S.; Kittler, J.T. Regulation of peroxisomal trafficking and distribution. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2021, 78, 1929–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kumar, P.; Wittmann, T. + TIPs: SxIPping along microtubule ends. Trends Cell Biol. 2012, 22, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Park, S.Y.; Guo, X. Adaptor protein complexes and intracellular transport. Biosci. Rep. 2014, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Egea, P.F. Crossing the Vacuolar Rubicon: Structural Insights into Effector Protein Trafficking in Apicomplexan Parasites. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Matic, I.; Schimmel, J.; Hendriks, I.A.; van Santen, M.A.; van de Rijke, F.; van Dam, H.; Gnad, F.; Mann, M.; Vertegaal, A.C. Site-specific identification of SUMO-2 targets in cells reveals an inverted SUMOylation motif and a hydrophobic cluster SUMOylation motif. Mol. Cell 2010, 39, 641–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zamborlini, A.; Coiffic, A.; Beauclair, G.; Delelis, O.; Paris, J.; Koh, Y.; Magne, F.; Giron, M.L.; Tobaly-Tapiero, J.; Deprez, E.; et al. Impairment of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 integrase SUMOylation correlates with an early replication defect. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 21013–21022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Zhao, X. SUMO-Mediated Regulation of Nuclear Functions and Signaling Processes. Mol. Cell 2018, 71, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Quek, H.; Lim, Y.C.; Lavin, M.F.; Roberts, T.L. PIKKing a way to regulate inflammation. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2018, 96, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Penalosa-Ruiz, G.; Bousgouni, V.; Gerlach, J.P.; Waarlo, S.; van de Ven, J.V.; Veenstra, T.E.; Silva, J.C.R.; van Heeringen, S.J.; Bakal, C.; Mulder, K.W.; et al. WDR5, BRCA1, and BARD1 Co-regulate the DNA Damage Response and Modulate the Mesenchymal-to-Epithelial Transition during Early Reprogramming. Stem Cell Rep. 2019, 12, 743–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Wheatley, S.P.; Altieri, D.C. Survivin at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2019, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Fang, Y.; Zhang, X. Targeting NEK2 as a promising therapeutic approach for cancer treatment. Cell Cycle 2016, 15, 895–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. De Carcer, G. The Mitotic Cancer Target Polo-Like Kinase 1: Oncogene or Tumor Suppressor? Genes 2019, 10, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Van Grevenynghe, J.; Cubas, R.A.; DaFonseca, S.; Metcalf, T.; Tremblay, C.L.; Trautmann, L.; Sekaly, R.P.; Schatzle, J.; Haddad, E.K. Foxo3a: An integrator of immune dysfunction during HIV infection. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2012, 23, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Aloni-Grinstein, R.; Charni-Natan, M.; Solomon, H.; Rotter, V. p53 and the Viral Connection: Back into the Future (double dagger). Cancers 2018, 10, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ho, J.; Moyes, D.L.; Tavassoli, M.; Naglik, J.R. The Role of ErbB Receptors in Infection. Trends Microbiol. 2017, 25, 942–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Khanizadeh, S.; Hasanvand, B.; Esmaeil Lashgarian, H.; Almasian, M.; Goudarzi, G. Interaction of viral oncogenic proteins with the Wnt signaling pathway. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2018, 21, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. De Martini, W.; Rahman, R.; Ojegba, E.; Jungwirth, E.; Macias, J.; Ackerly, F.; Fowler, M.; Cottrell, J.; Chu, T.; Chang, S.L. Kinases: Understanding Their Role in HIV Infection. World J. AIDS 2019, 9, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Medders, K.E.; Kaul, M. Mitogen-activated protein kinase p38 in HIV infection and associated brain injury. J. Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2011, 6, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Saez-Cirion, A.; Manel, N. Immune Responses to Retroviruses. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2018, 36, 193–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Shi, J.H.; Sun, S.C. Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor-Associated Factor Regulation of Nuclear Factor kappaB and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Pathways. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Nehlig, A.; Molina, A.; Rodrigues-Ferreira, S.; Honore, S.; Nahmias, C. Regulation of end-binding protein EB1 in the control of microtubule dynamics. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2017, 74, 2381–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Cao, H.; Orth, J.D.; Chen, J.; Weller, S.G.; Heuser, J.E.; McNiven, M.A. Cortactin is a component of clathrin-coated pits and participates in receptor-mediated endocytosis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2003, 23, 2162–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Zare, M.; Mostafaei, S.; Ahmadi, A.; Azimzadeh Jamalkandi, S.; Abedini, A.; Esfahani-Monfared, Z.; Dorostkar, R.; Saadati, M. Human endogenous retrovirus env genes: Potential blood biomarkers in lung cancer. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 115, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bergallo, M.; Montanari, P.; Mareschi, K.; Merlino, C.; Berger, M.; Bini, I.; Dapra, V.; Galliano, I.; Fagioli, F. Expression of the pol gene of human endogenous retroviruses HERV-K and -W in leukemia patients. Arch. Virol 2017, 162, 3639–3644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ma, W.; Hong, Z.; Liu, H.; Chen, X.; Ding, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, F.; Yuan, Y. Human Endogenous Retroviruses-K (HML-2) Expression Is Correlated with Prognosis and Progress of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 8201642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yuan, Z.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Soto, C.; Jiang, X.; An, Z.; Zheng, W.J. Human Endogenous Retroviruses in Glioblastoma Multiforme. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Dembny, P.; Newman, A.G.; Singh, M.; Hinz, M.; Szczepek, M.; Kruger, C.; Adalbert, R.; Dzaye, O.; Trimbuch, T.; Wallach, T.; et al. Human endogenous retrovirus HERV-K(HML-2) RNA causes neurodegeneration through Toll-like receptors. JCI Insight 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Jeong, B.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Carp, R.I.; Kim, Y.S. The prevalence of human endogenous retroviruses in cerebrospinal fluids from patients with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. J. Clin. Virol. 2010, 47, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tovo, P.A.; Rabbone, I.; Tinti, D.; Galliano, I.; Trada, M.; Dapra, V.; Cerutti, F.; Bergallo, M. Enhanced expression of human endogenous retroviruses in new-onset type 1 diabetes: Potential pathogenetic and therapeutic implications. Autoimmunity 2020, 53, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Mason, M.J.; Speake, C.; Gersuk, V.H.; Nguyen, Q.A.; O’Brien, K.K.; Odegard, J.M.; Buckner, J.H.; Greenbaum, C.J.; Chaussabel, D.; Nepom, G.T. Low HERV-K(C4) copy number is associated with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2014, 63, 1789–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Dickerson, F.; Rubalcaba, E.; Viscidi, R.; Yang, S.; Stallings, C.; Sullens, A.; Origoni, A.; Leister, F.; Yolken, R. Polymorphisms in human endogenous retrovirus K-18 and risk of type 2 diabetes in individuals with schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 2008, 104, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Cinek, O.; Kramna, L.; Odeh, R.; Alassaf, A.; Ibekwe, M.A.U.; Ahmadov, G.; Elmahi, B.M.E.; Mekki, H.; Lebl, J.; Abdullah, M.A. Eukaryotic viruses in the fecal virome at the onset of type 1 diabetes: A study from four geographically distant African and Asian countries. Pediatr. Diabetes 2021, 22, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Piekna-Przybylska, D.; Sharma, G.; Maggirwar, S.B.; Bambara, R.A. Deficiency in DNA damage response, a new characteristic of cells infected with latent HIV-1. Cell Cycle 2017, 16, 968–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Li, D.; Lopez, A.; Sandoval, C.; Nichols Doyle, R.; Fregoso, O.I. HIV Vpr Modulates the Host DNA Damage Response at Two Independent Steps to Damage DNA and Repress Double-Strand DNA Break Repair. mBio 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zhi, H.; Guo, X.; Ho, Y.K.; Pasupala, N.; Engstrom, H.A.A.; Semmes, O.J.; Giam, C.Z. RNF8 Dysregulation and Down-regulation During HTLV-1 Infection Promote Genomic Instability in Adult T-Cell Leukemia. PLoS Pathog. 2020, 16, e1008618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Luftig, M.A. Viruses and the DNA Damage Response: Activation and Antagonism. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2014, 1, 605–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Hristova, D.B.; Lauer, K.B.; Ferguson, B.J. Viral interactions with non-homologous end-joining: A game of hide-and-seek. J. Gen. Virol. 2020, 101, 1133–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mohammad, D.H.; Yaffe, M.B. 14-3-3 proteins, FHA domains and BRCT domains in the DNA damage response. DNA Repair 2009, 8, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Pancholi, N.J.; Price, A.M.; Weitzman, M.D. Take your PIKK: Tumour viruses and DNA damage response pathways. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Zimmerman, E.S.; Chen, J.; Andersen, J.L.; Ardon, O.; Dehart, J.L.; Blackett, J.; Choudhary, S.K.; Camerini, D.; Nghiem, P.; Planelles, V. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Vpr-mediated G2 arrest requires Rad17 and Hus1 and induces nuclear BRCA1 and gamma-H2AX focus formation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004, 24, 9286–9294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Shukrun, M.; Jabareen, A.; Abou-Kandil, A.; Chamias, R.; Aboud, M.; Huleihel, M. HTLV-1 Tax oncoprotein inhibits the estrogen-induced-ER alpha-Mediated BRCA1 expression by interaction with CBP/p300 cofactors. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nathan, K.G.; Lal, S.K. The Multifarious Role of 14-3-3 Family of Proteins in Viral Replication. Viruses 2020, 12, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Wu, Q.; Jubb, H.; Blundell, T.L. Phosphopeptide interactions with BRCA1 BRCT domains: More than just a motif. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2015, 117, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Clapperton, J.A.; Manke, I.A.; Lowery, D.M.; Ho, T.; Haire, L.F.; Yaffe, M.B.; Smerdon, S.J. Structure and mechanism of BRCA1 BRCT domain recognition of phosphorylated BACH1 with implications for cancer. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2004, 11, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Fan, X.; Cui, L.; Zeng, Y.; Song, W.; Gaur, U.; Yang, M. 14-3-3 Proteins Are on the Crossroads of Cancer, Aging, and Age-Related Neurodegenerative Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Morales, D.; Skoulakis, E.C.; Acevedo, S.F. 14-3-3s are potential biomarkers for HIV-related neurodegeneration. J. Neurovirol. 2012, 18, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Roskoski, R., Jr. RAF protein-serine/threonine kinases: Structure and regulation. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 399, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tang, J.; Wang, J.Y.; Parker, L.L. Detection of early Abl kinase activation after ionizing radiation by using a peptide biosensor. ChemBioChem Eur. J. Chem. Biol. 2012, 13, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. McCarthy, S.D.S.; Leontyev, D.; Nicoletti, P.; Binnington, B.; Kozlowski, H.N.; Ostrowski, M.; Cochrane, A.; Branch, D.R.; Wong, R.W. Targeting ABL1 or ARG Tyrosine Kinases to Restrict HIV-1 Infection in Primary CD4+ T-Cells or in Humanized NSG Mice. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2019, 82, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kodama, D.; Tanaka, M.; Matsuzaki, T.; Izumo, K.; Nakano, N.; Matsuura, E.; Saito, M.; Nagai, M.; Horiuchi, M.; Utsunomiya, A.; et al. Inhibition of ABL1 tyrosine kinase reduces HTLV-1 proviral loads in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with HTLV-1-associated myelopathy/tropical spastic paraparesis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Baskaran, R.; Escobar, S.R.; Wang, J.Y. Nuclear c-Abl is a COOH-terminal repeated domain (CTD)-tyrosine (CTD)-tyrosine kinase-specific for the mammalian RNA polymerase II: Possible role in transcription elongation. Cell Growth Differ. 1999, 10, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Schlatterer, S.D.; Acker, C.M.; Davies, P. c-Abl in neurodegenerative disease. J. Mol. Neurosci. 2011, 45, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Kim, B.W.; Jeong, Y.E.; Wong, M.; Martin, L.J. DNA damage accumulates and responses are engaged in human ALS brain and spinal motor neurons and DNA repair is activatable in iPSC-derived motor neurons with SOD1 mutations. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2020, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Wang, W.; Mani, A.M.; Wu, Z.H. DNA damage-induced nuclear factor-kappa B activation and its roles in cancer progression. J. Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2017, 3, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Zuo, S.; Xue, Y.; Tang, S.; Yao, J.; Du, R.; Yang, P.; Chen, X. 14-3-3 epsilon dynamically interacts with key components of mitogen-activated protein kinase signal module for selective modulation of the TNF-alpha-induced time course-dependent NF-kappaB activity. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9, 3465–3478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Pennington, K.L.; Chan, T.Y.; Torres, M.P.; Andersen, J.L. The dynamic and stress-adaptive signaling hub of 14-3-3: Emerging mechanisms of regulation and context-dependent protein-protein interactions. Oncogene 2018, 37, 5587–5604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Saha, R.N.; Jana, M.; Pahan, K. MAPK p38 regulates transcriptional activity of NF-kappaB in primary human astrocytes via acetylation of p65. J. Immunol. 2007, 179, 7101–7109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Zheng, Y.; Ao, Z.; Wang, B.; Jayappa, K.D.; Yao, X. Host protein Ku70 binds and protects HIV-1 integrase from proteasomal degradation and is required for HIV replication. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 17722–17735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Llano, M.; Delgado, S.; Vanegas, M.; Poeschla, E.M. Lens epithelium-derived growth factor/p75 prevents proteasomal degradation of HIV-1 integrase. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 55570–55577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Manganaro, L.; Lusic, M.; Gutierrez, M.I.; Cereseto, A.; Del Sal, G.; Giacca, M. Concerted action of cellular JNK and Pin1 restricts HIV-1 genome integration to activated CD4+ T lymphocytes. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Quy, V.C.; Carnevale, V.; Manganaro, L.; Lusic, M.; Rossetti, G.; Leone, V.; Fenollar-Ferrer, C.; Raugei, S.; Del Sal, G.; Giacca, M.; et al. HIV-1 integrase binding to its cellular partners: A perspective from computational biology. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2014, 20, 3412–3421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Kojima, Y.; Ryo, A. Pinning down viral proteins: A new prototype for virus-host cell interaction. Front. Microbiol. 2010, 1, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Nieto-Torres, J.L.; Leidal, A.M.; Debnath, J.; Hansen, M. Beyond Autophagy: The Expanding Roles of ATG8 Proteins. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Leymarie, O.; Lepont, L.; Berlioz-Torrent, C. Canonical and Non-Canonical Autophagy in HIV-1 Replication Cycle. Viruses 2017, 9, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Vicencio, E.; Beltran, S.; Labrador, L.; Manque, P.; Nassif, M.; Woehlbier, U. Implications of Selective Autophagy Dysfunction for ALS Pathology. Cells 2020, 9, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Watanabe, Y.; Taguchi, K.; Tanaka, M. Ubiquitin, Autophagy and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Cells 2020, 9, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Negrini, S.; Gorgoulis, V.G.; Halazonetis, T.D. Genomic instability--an evolving hallmark of cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Sun, Y.; Curle, A.J.; Haider, A.M.; Balmus, G. The role of DNA damage response in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Essays Biochem. 2020, 64, 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hou, Y.; Song, H.; Croteau, D.L.; Akbari, M.; Bohr, V.A. Genome instability in Alzheimer disease. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2017, 161, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Madabhushi, R.; Pan, L.; Tsai, L.H. DNA damage and its links to neurodegeneration. Neuron 2014, 83, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Malaspina, A.; Kaushik, N.; de Belleroche, J. A 14-3-3 mRNA is up-regulated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis spinal cord. J. Neurochem. 2000, 75, 2511–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Hermeking, H. The 14-3-3 cancer connection. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003, 3, 931–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Martin, L.J. p53 is abnormally elevated and active in the CNS of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurobiol. Dis. 2000, 7, 613–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Ozaki, T.; Nakagawara, A. Role of p53 in Cell Death and Human Cancers. Cancers 2011, 3, 994–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Koul, H.K.; Pal, M.; Koul, S. Role of p38 MAP Kinase Signal Transduction in Solid Tumors. Genes Cancer 2013, 4, 342–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Guo, W.; Vandoorne, T.; Steyaert, J.; Staats, K.A.; Van Den Bosch, L. The multifaceted role of kinases in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Genetic, pathological and therapeutic implications. Brain 2020, 143, 1651–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Jiang, X.; Guan, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Meng, F.; Wang, X.; Gao, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, F.; Zhou, S.; et al. Potential Roles of the WNT Signaling Pathway in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Cells 2021, 10, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Menck, K.; Heinrichs, S.; Baden, C.; Bleckmann, A. The WNT/ROR Pathway in Cancer: From Signaling to Therapeutic Intervention. Cells 2021, 10, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Manigrasso, M.B.; Juranek, J.; Ramasamy, R.; Schmidt, A.M. Unlocking the biology of RAGE in diabetic microvascular complications. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 25, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Kumar, V.; Fleming, T.; Terjung, S.; Gorzelanny, C.; Gebhardt, C.; Agrawal, R.; Mall, M.A.; Ranzinger, J.; Zeier, M.; Madhusudhan, T.; et al. Homeostatic nuclear RAGE-ATM interaction is essential for efficient DNA repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, 10595–10613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Abe, R.; Yamagishi, S. AGE-RAGE system and carcinogenesis. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008, 14, 940–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Derk, J.; MacLean, M.; Juranek, J.; Schmidt, A.M. The Receptor for Advanced Glycation Endproducts (RAGE) and Mediation of Inflammatory Neurodegeneration. J. Alzheimers Dis. Parkinsonism 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Shaposhnikov, M.; Proshkina, E.; Shilova, L.; Zhavoronkov, A.; Moskalev, A. Lifespan and Stress Resistance in Drosophila with Overexpressed DNA Repair Genes. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Garinis, G.A.; van der Horst, G.T.; Vijg, J.; Hoeijmakers, J.H. DNA damage and ageing: New-age ideas for an age-old problem. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10, 1241–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Engelman, A.N. Multifaceted HIV integrase functionalities and therapeutic strategies for their inhibition. J. Biol. Chem. 2019, 294, 15137–15157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Cherepanov, P. LEDGF/p75 interacts with divergent lentiviral integrases and modulates their enzymatic activity in vitro. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Anisenko, A.; Kan, M.; Shadrina, O.; Brattseva, A.; Gottikh, M. Phosphorylation Targets of DNA-PK and Their Role in HIV-1 Replication. Cells 2020, 9, 1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Santos da Silva, E.; Shanmugapriya, S.; Malikov, V.; Gu, F.; Delaney, M.K.; Naghavi, M.H. HIV-1 capsids mimic a microtubule regulator to coordinate early stages of infection. EMBO J. 2020, 39, e104870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. De Oliveira, D.S.; Rosa, M.T.; Vieira, C.; Loreto, E.L.S. Oxidative and radiation stress induces transposable element transcription in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2021, 34, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Salces-Ortiz, J.; Vargas-Chavez, C.; Guio, L.; Rech, G.E.; Gonzalez, J. Transposable elements contribute to the genomic response to insecticides in Drosophila melanogaster. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20190341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. ERVK integrase and exogenous betaretrovirus integrases share common eukaryotic linear motifs. In silico examination of the conserved and differential eukaryotic linear motifs (ELMs) within Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK) and similar betaretroviral integrases. A betaretroviral integrase consensus sequence was constructed using GenBank sequences as follows: Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK; P10266.2), Exogenous mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV; AAF31469.1), Mason–Pfizer monkey virus 5 (M-PMV; BBG56792.1), Enzootic nasal tumor virus (ENTV; ANG58699.1) and Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV; NP_041186.1). The HHCC region and DDE active site motif (gray, with key aa. in black) was positioned based on Conserved Domains annotations. ELMs were grouped based on related pathways: DNA damage response (dark blue), cell cycle (cyan), cell signaling (green), cell trafficking (magenta), autophagy (mauve), and glycosylation (red). ELM abbreviations used include: 14-3-3 = 14-3-3 protein interaction site, BRCT = BRCA1 C-terminus domain interaction site, CK1-P = casein kinase 1 phosphorylation site, Cyclin = cyclin docking site, EBH = end binding homology domain interaction site, ERK/p38 = ERK1/2 and p38 MAP kinase docking site, FHA = Forkhead-associated domain interaction site, GlyNH = glycosaminoglycan attachment site, GSK3-P = GSK3 phosphorylation site, IAP = inhibitor of apoptosis protein interaction site, ITIM = immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif, LIR = site that interacts with Atg8 protein family members, NEK2-P = NEK2 phosphorylation site, p38-P = p38 phosphorylation site, Pex14 = peroxisomal membrane docking via Pex14, PIKK-P = PIKK family phosphorylation site, Pin1 = docking site for Pin1 via WW domain interaction, PKA-P = PKA phosphorylation site, PLK-P = polo-like kinase phosphorylation site, PP1c = protein phosphatase 1 catalytic subunit docking motif, SH2 = Src homology 2 domain interaction motif, SH3 = interaction site for non-canonical class I recognition specificity SH3 domains, STAT3 = STAT3 SH2 domain binding motif, STAT5 = STAT5 SH2 domain binding motif, TRAF2 = major TRAF2 binding consensus motif, USP7 = USP7 MATH (M) or UBL2 (U) domain interaction sites, WDR5 = interaction motif for WDR5 via WW domain interaction. Asterisks indicate ELMs unique to ERVK. Sequence alignment and annotation were performed using Geneious Prime software.
Figure 1. ERVK integrase and exogenous betaretrovirus integrases share common eukaryotic linear motifs. In silico examination of the conserved and differential eukaryotic linear motifs (ELMs) within Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK) and similar betaretroviral integrases. A betaretroviral integrase consensus sequence was constructed using GenBank sequences as follows: Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK; P10266.2), Exogenous mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV; AAF31469.1), Mason–Pfizer monkey virus 5 (M-PMV; BBG56792.1), Enzootic nasal tumor virus (ENTV; ANG58699.1) and Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV; NP_041186.1). The HHCC region and DDE active site motif (gray, with key aa. in black) was positioned based on Conserved Domains annotations. ELMs were grouped based on related pathways: DNA damage response (dark blue), cell cycle (cyan), cell signaling (green), cell trafficking (magenta), autophagy (mauve), and glycosylation (red). ELM abbreviations used include: 14-3-3 = 14-3-3 protein interaction site, BRCT = BRCA1 C-terminus domain interaction site, CK1-P = casein kinase 1 phosphorylation site, Cyclin = cyclin docking site, EBH = end binding homology domain interaction site, ERK/p38 = ERK1/2 and p38 MAP kinase docking site, FHA = Forkhead-associated domain interaction site, GlyNH = glycosaminoglycan attachment site, GSK3-P = GSK3 phosphorylation site, IAP = inhibitor of apoptosis protein interaction site, ITIM = immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif, LIR = site that interacts with Atg8 protein family members, NEK2-P = NEK2 phosphorylation site, p38-P = p38 phosphorylation site, Pex14 = peroxisomal membrane docking via Pex14, PIKK-P = PIKK family phosphorylation site, Pin1 = docking site for Pin1 via WW domain interaction, PKA-P = PKA phosphorylation site, PLK-P = polo-like kinase phosphorylation site, PP1c = protein phosphatase 1 catalytic subunit docking motif, SH2 = Src homology 2 domain interaction motif, SH3 = interaction site for non-canonical class I recognition specificity SH3 domains, STAT3 = STAT3 SH2 domain binding motif, STAT5 = STAT5 SH2 domain binding motif, TRAF2 = major TRAF2 binding consensus motif, USP7 = USP7 MATH (M) or UBL2 (U) domain interaction sites, WDR5 = interaction motif for WDR5 via WW domain interaction. Asterisks indicate ELMs unique to ERVK. Sequence alignment and annotation were performed using Geneious Prime software.
Microorganisms 09 01509 g001
Figure 2. ERVK integrase and similar endogenous integrases share eukaryotic linear motifs patterns. Modified OneZoom image illustrating the conservation of ELM motifs in integrases from eukaryotic organisms (Homo sapiens, Macaca fasicicularis, Fukomys damarensis, Ochotona princeps, Equis asinus, and Capra hircus). Motifs are color-grouped according to function; DDR (blue), cell cycle (cyan), cell signaling (green), and intracellular trafficking (magenta). The number in each colored shape refers to the number of motifs with the respective integrase enzyme.
Figure 2. ERVK integrase and similar endogenous integrases share eukaryotic linear motifs patterns. Modified OneZoom image illustrating the conservation of ELM motifs in integrases from eukaryotic organisms (Homo sapiens, Macaca fasicicularis, Fukomys damarensis, Ochotona princeps, Equis asinus, and Capra hircus). Motifs are color-grouped according to function; DDR (blue), cell cycle (cyan), cell signaling (green), and intracellular trafficking (magenta). The number in each colored shape refers to the number of motifs with the respective integrase enzyme.
Microorganisms 09 01509 g002
Figure 3. Predicted ERVK integrase interactome. Cellular proteins containing complementary interaction motifs for ELMs identified in Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK) integrase were listed as query proteins for STRING network analysis. Only query proteins with a minimum interaction score of 0.9 based on experiments and databases as interaction sources are indicated. Edges indicate both functional and physical protein associations. A payload list was generated to color nodes and hubs related to dominant pathways: DNA damage response (dark blue), cell cycle (cyan), apoptosis (black), cell signaling (green), and cell transport (magenta).
Figure 3. Predicted ERVK integrase interactome. Cellular proteins containing complementary interaction motifs for ELMs identified in Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK) integrase were listed as query proteins for STRING network analysis. Only query proteins with a minimum interaction score of 0.9 based on experiments and databases as interaction sources are indicated. Edges indicate both functional and physical protein associations. A payload list was generated to color nodes and hubs related to dominant pathways: DNA damage response (dark blue), cell cycle (cyan), apoptosis (black), cell signaling (green), and cell transport (magenta).
Microorganisms 09 01509 g003
Figure 4. KEGG pathways associated with ERVK integrase interactome. Predicted interacting partners were curated based on ERVK IN ELM motifs and submitted to STRING network analysis software. Enriched KEGG pathways are reported along with significance scores (−log10 p value). ERVK IN is predicted to interact with cellular pathways involved in the cell cycle, cell signaling, immunity, and inflammation, as well as disease pathways associated with several cancers, the nervous system, and diabetes.
Figure 4. KEGG pathways associated with ERVK integrase interactome. Predicted interacting partners were curated based on ERVK IN ELM motifs and submitted to STRING network analysis software. Enriched KEGG pathways are reported along with significance scores (−log10 p value). ERVK IN is predicted to interact with cellular pathways involved in the cell cycle, cell signaling, immunity, and inflammation, as well as disease pathways associated with several cancers, the nervous system, and diabetes.
Microorganisms 09 01509 g004
Table 1. ELM motifs in integrases from ERVK and exogenous betaretroviruses.
Table 1. ELM motifs in integrases from ERVK and exogenous betaretroviruses.
ELM MotifELM AccessionAlignment NotationIntegraseConservation
ERVKMMTVM-PMVENTVJSRV
Cleavage and
degradation
CLV_C14_Caspase3-7ELME000321 100020.4
CLV_PCSK_KEX2_1ELME000108 100000.2
CLV_NRD_NRD_1ELME000102 010110.6
CLV_PCSK_PC1ET2_1ELME000100 100000.2
CLV_PCSK_SKI1_1ELME000146 544100.8
DEG_APCC_DBOX_1ELME000231 000100.2
DockingDOC_CKS1_1ELME000358 010000.2
DOC_CYCLIN_RxL_1ELME000106Cyclin202000.4
DOC_MAPK_gen_1ELME000233 020110.6
DOC_MAPK_MEF2A_6ELME000432ERK/p38110110.8
DOC_PP1_RVXF_1ELME000137PP1c311111.0
DOC_PP2B_LxvP_1ELME000367 101000.4
DOC_PP4_FxxP_1ELME000477 010110.6
DOC_USP7_MATH_1ELME000239USP7_M130220.8
DOC_USP7_UBL2_3ELME000394USP7_U101000.4
DOC_WW_Pin1_4ELME000136Pin1361321.0
LigandLIG_14-3-3_CanoR_1ELME00041714-3-3211221.0
LIG_14-3-3_CterR_2ELME00041814-3-3 *100000.2
LIG_Actin_WH2_2ELME000313 010110.6
LIG_APCC_ABBA_1ELME000435 010000.2
LIG_BIR_II_1ELME000285IAP111111.0
LIG_BIR_III_4ELME000293 000100.2
LIG_BRCT_BRCA1_1ELME000197BRCT101110.8
LIG_BRCT_BRCA1_2ELME000198BRCT1 *100000.2
LIG_CSL_BTD_1ELME000410 110000.4
LIG_EH1_1ELME000148 001010.4
LIG_eIF4E_1ELME000317 010000.2
LIG_FHA_1ELME000052FHA512010.8
LIG_FHA_2ELME000220FHA 2111000.6
LIG_LIR_Apic_2ELME000369 032110.8
LIG_LIR_Gen_1ELME000368LIR200000.2
LIG_MAD2ELME000167 000100.2
LIG_NRBOXELME000045 000100.2
LIG_LIR_Nem_3ELME000370 067140.8
LIG_Pex14_1ELME000080Pex14100000.2
LIG_Pex14_2ELME000328Pex14221111.0
LIG_PTB_Apo_2ELME000122 001010.4
LIG_PTB_Phospho_1ELME000095 000010.2
LIG_RPA_C_FungiELME000382 001110.6
LIG_SH2_CRKELME000458 020000.2
LIG_SH2_NCK_1ELME000474 010000.2
LIG_SH2_PTP2ELME000083SH2110110.8
LIG_SH2_SRCELME000081SH2111111.0
LIG_SH2_STAP1ELME000465 210000.4
LIG_SH2_STAT3ELME000163STAT3211111.0
LIG_SH2_STAT5ELME000182STAT5332331.0
LIG_SH3_1ELME000005 010000.2
LIG_SH3_3ELME000155SH3121111.0
LIG_SH3_4ELME000156 000100.2
LIG_SxIP_EBH_1ELME000254EBH111121.0
LIG_TRAF2_1ELME000117TRAF2110110.8
LIG_TYR_ITIMELME000020ITIM111111.0
LIG_Vh1_VBS_1ELME000438 000010.2
LIG_WD40_WDR5_VDV_2ELME000365WDR52103891.0
LIG_WW_3ELME000135 010000.2
ModificationMOD_CDK_SPK_2ELME000429 001000.2
MOD_CDK_SPxK_1ELME000153 010000.2
MOD_CK1_1ELME000063CK1-P132441.0
MOD_CK2_1ELME000064 331000.6
MOD_Cter_AmidationELME000093 100000.2
MOD_GlcNHglycanELME000085GlyNH123121.0
MOD_GSK3_1ELME000053GSK3-P342121.0
MOD_NEK2_1ELME000336NEK2-P233241.0
MOD_NEK2_2ELME000337 001000.2
MOD_N-GLC_1ELME000070 101200.6
MOD_PIKK_1ELME000202 501000.4
MOD_PKA_1ELME000008 010000.2
MOD_PKA_2ELME000062PKA-P101220.8
MOD_Plk_1ELME000442PLK-P412111.0
MOD_Plk_4ELME000444 101000.4
MOD_ProDKin_1ELME000159p38-P361321.0
MOD_SUMO_rev_2ELME000393 110000.4
TargetTRG_ENDOCYTIC_2ELME000120 242111.0
TRG_Pf-PMV_PEXEL_1ELME000462 121111.0
GenBank accession numbers for betaretroviral integrase sequences are as follows: Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK; P10266.2), Exogenous mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV; AAF31469.1), Mason–Pzifer monkey virus 5 (M-PMV; BBG56792.1), Enzootic nasal tumor virus (ENTV; ANG58699.1) and Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus (JSRV; NP_041186.1). Asterisk indicates ERVK-specific ELM motif in Figure 1.
Table 2. ELM motifs in ERVK integrase and similar endogenous integrases in eukaryotes.
Table 2. ELM motifs in ERVK integrase and similar endogenous integrases in eukaryotes.
ELM MotifELM AccessionERVK Integrase
(Homo sapiens)
ERVK-8 Pol protein-Like
(Macaca fascicularis)
Pol Protein
(Chlorocebus sabaeus)
Pol Protein
(Fukomys darmarensis)
Putative Protein
(Ochonta princeps)
ERVK-8 pol Protein-Like
(Equus asinus)
ERVK-18 pol Protein-Like
(Capra hircus)
Pol Protein
(Ovis aries)
Putative Protein
(Zonotrichia albicollis)
Putative Protein
(Zosterops borbonicus)
Integrase
(Onchocerca flexuosa)
Motif conservation
CleavageCLV_C14_Caspase3-7ELME000321100010000000.2
CLV_NRD_NRD_1ELME000102000000010010.2
CLV_PCSK_KEX2_1ELME000108120000000100.3
CLV_PCSK_PC1ET2_1ELME000100120000000100.3
CLV_PCSK_SKI1_1ELME000146534378003520.8
DegradationDEG_APCC_DBOX_1ELME000231000000000010.1
DEG_MDM2_SWIB_1ELME000184000000001000.1
DockingDOC_CKS1_1ELME000358010020001210.5
DOC_CYCLIN_RxL_1ELME000106212022003310.7
DOC_MAPK_DCC_7ELME000433000100000010.2
DOC_MAPK_gen_1ELME000233010352112410.8
DOC_MAPK_HePTP_8ELME000434000000000010.1
DOC_MAPK_MEF2A_6ELME000432110021113430.8
DOC_PP1_RVXF_1ELME000137331100110110.7
DOC_PP2A_B56_1ELME000425000100000000.1
DOC_PP2B_LxvP_1ELME000367112000001110.5
DOC_PP2B_PxIxI_1ELME000237000010000000.1
DOC_PP4_FxxP_1ELME000477011111100020.6
DOC_USP7_MATH_1ELME000239130111223130.9
DOC_USP7_MATH_2ELME000240010010000000.2
DOC_USP7_UBL2_3ELME000394120000001300.4
DOC_WW_Pin1_4ELME000136301062223310.8
LigandLIG_14-3-3_CanoR_1ELME000417241122123111.0
LIG_14-3-3_CterR_2ELME000418100000000000.1
LIG_Actin_WH2_2ELME000313001100110110.5
LIG_APCC_ABBA_1ELME000435000101000000.2
LIG_BIR_II_1ELME000285111111111111.0
LIG_BIR_III_4ELME000293000000110000.2
LIG_BRCT_BRCA1_1ELME000197120100110020.5
LIG_BRCT_BRCA1_2ELME000198110000000000.2
LIG_CSL_BTD_1ELME000410101111000000.5
LIG_deltaCOP1_diTrp_1ELME000459000000001000.1
LIG_EH1_1ELME000148001000110000.3
LIG_eIF4E_1ELME000317000010000010.2
LIG_FHA_1ELME000052555320011140.8
LIG_FHA_2ELME000220110132000100.5
LIG_LIR_Apic_2ELME000369033212111010.8
LIG_LIR_Gen_1ELME000368211121011100.8
LIG_LIR_Nem_3ELME000370657673441361.0
LIG_LYPXL_S_1ELME000294000000000010.1
LIG_PCNA_PIPBox_1ELME000140001000000000.1
LIG_PCNA_yPIPBox_3ELME000482000222000000.3
LIG_Pex14_1ELME000080100010002200.4
LIG_Pex14_2ELME000328231202111210.9
LIG_PTB_Apo_2ELME000122000210111100.5
LIG_PTB_Phospho_1ELME000095000110110000.4
LIG_REV1ctd_RIR_1ELME000450000000001000.1
LIG_RPA_C_FungiELME000382000000110100.3
LIG_SH2_CRKELME000458010122001100.5
LIG_SH2_GRB2likeELME000084000000000010.1
LIG_SH2_NCK_1ELME000474010101001100.5
LIG_SH2_PTP2ELME000083101110111010.7
LIG_SH2_SRCELME000081102111111020.8
LIG_SH2_STAP1ELME000465210011001110.6
LIG_SH2_STAT3ELME000163221011110010.7
LIG_SH2_STAT5ELME000182313232333251.0
LIG_SH3_3ELME000155121132115421.0
LIG_SUMO_SIM_par_1ELME000333010100001200.4
LIG_SxIP_EBH_1ELME000254101201020110.6
LIG_TRAF2_1ELME000117110112110000.6
LIG_TRAF6ELME000133000001000000.1
LIG_TRFH_1ELME000249000000000010.1
LIG_TYR_ITIMELME000020102110111010.7
LIG_UBA3_1ELME000395001000000010.2
LIG_Vh1_VBS_1ELME000438000100110100.4
LIG_WD40_WDR5_VDV_1ELME000364000000000100.1
LIG_WD40_WDR5_VDV_2ELME0003652106568881010121.0
LIG_WW_3ELME000135000100000000.1
ModificationMOD_CDK_SPK_2ELME000429001010000010.3
MOD_CDK_SPxxK_3ELME000428000011001100.4
MOD_CK1_1ELME000063101231334330.9
MOD_CK2_1ELME000064321432000100.6
MOD_CMANNOSELME000160000010000000.1
MOD_Cter_AmidationELME000093110000000000.2
MOD_GlcNHglycanELME000085133320224250.9
MOD_GSK3_1ELME000053313422110460.9
MOD_NEK2_1ELME000336233221441231.0
MOD_NEK2_2ELME000337001111001010.5
MOD_N-GLC_1ELME000070300211002110.6
MOD_N-GLC_2ELME000079001020000010.3
MOD_PIKK_1ELME000202532120002100.6
MOD_PK_1ELME000065020001000010.3
MOD_PKA_1ELME000008010101000100.4
MOD_PKA_2ELME000062111112021020.8
MOD_Plk_1ELME000442421224112321.0
MOD_Plk_4ELME000444123222001200.7
MOD_ProDKin_1ELME000159331062223310.9
MOD_SUMO_for_1ELME000002000000002000.1
MOD_SUMO_rev_2ELME000393110000000000.2
TargetingTRG_ENDOCYTIC_2ELME000120213222112121.0
TRG_LysEnd_APsAcLL_1ELME000149000000001010.2
TRG_NLS_MonoExtC_3ELME000278000001000000.1
TRG_Pf-PMV_PEXEL_1ELME000462111111111111.0
GenBank accession numbers for endogenous integrase sequences are as follows: Endogenous retrovirus-K (ERVK in Homo sapiens; P10266.2), ERVK-8 pol protein-like (Macaca fascicularis; XP_015309771.1), Pol protein (Chlorocebus sabaeus; KFO35018.1), Pol protein (Fukomys darmarensis; BBC20786.1), Putative protein (Ochonta princeps; XP_012786727.1), ERVK-8 pol protein-like (Equus asinus; XP_014715024.1), ERVK-18 pol protein-like (Capra hircus; XP_017905435.1), Pol protein (Ovis aries; ABV71120.1), Putative protein (Zonotrichia albicollis; TRZ15504.1), Putative protein (Zosterops borbonicus; XP_014125095.1), Integrase (Onchocerca flexuosa; OZC05619.1).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Benoit, I.; Brownell, S.; Douville, R.N. Predicted Cellular Interactors of the Endogenous Retrovirus-K Integrase Enzyme. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9071509

AMA Style

Benoit I, Brownell S, Douville RN. Predicted Cellular Interactors of the Endogenous Retrovirus-K Integrase Enzyme. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(7):1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9071509

Chicago/Turabian Style

Benoit, Ilena, Signy Brownell, and Renée N. Douville. 2021. "Predicted Cellular Interactors of the Endogenous Retrovirus-K Integrase Enzyme" Microorganisms 9, no. 7: 1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9071509

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop