Home Biology 5 households of various DNA viruses comprehensively restructure the nucleus

5 households of various DNA viruses comprehensively restructure the nucleus

5 households of various DNA viruses comprehensively restructure the nucleus



Life, as we at present realize it on Earth, is outlined as being mobile and DNA primarily based. Viruses, though nucleic acid primarily based, should not mobile and could be considered mobile parasites that encode info permitting them to copy, unfold, escape, and infect extra hosts. Of the three domains of our organic tree of life (Archaea, Micro organism, and Eukarya) [1], solely Eukarya retailer their DNA in a subcellular compartment, the nucleus. In a standard resting eukaryotic cell, meters of DNA are wrapped round histone octamers or nucleosomes [2] that reside throughout the nucleus. Arrays of those nucleosomes represent the chromatin fibers [3] that type chromosomes, that are spatially localized to distinct areas of the nucleus [4]. Though the cell’s chromatin sometimes fills a lot of the nuclear quantity, particular mobile occasions can result in its reorganization.

One frequent type of chromatin reorganization happens throughout cell division, when mobile chromatin is condensed into X-shaped chromosomes (Fig 1). Because the nuclear envelope breaks down firstly of mitosis and meiosis, these condensed metaphase chromosomes are organized throughout the mobile equator in preparation for his or her separation into 2 daughter cells. A second type of chromatin reorganization happens throughout apoptosis. In animal cells, pyknosis (the irreversible condensation of chromatin throughout the nucleus) and karyorrhexis (the fragmentation of the cell nucleus and its condensed chromatin) happen, inflicting the uneven distribution of apoptotic our bodies containing DNA all through the cytoplasm [5]. In crops, apoptosis-like occasions result in condensed chromatin and vacuolar cell dying, through which apoptotic our bodies are additionally noticed [6]. A 3rd sort of chromatin reorganization is induced by some viral infections and is characterised by the condensation and margination of mobile chromatin throughout the cell nucleus. This reorganization has been beforehand known as virus-induced reorganization of mobile chromatin (ROCC) [7] and sure happens in 2 phases (ROCC kind I and ROCC kind II; Fig 1).


Fig 1. Types of mobile chromatin reorganization.

In a standard, resting, interphase, eukaryotic cell, mobile DNA resides within the nucleus as uncondensed, protein-associated chromatin. Mobile chromatin is generally distributed evenly throughout the nucleus, however particular mobile occasions can set off its reorganization. For instance, throughout cell division, chromatin is condensed into X-shaped chromosomes, prominently seen in metaphase cells (left). When a cell undergoes apoptosis (center), its chromatin is condensed and finally turns into fragmented, typically budded out via plasma membrane blebbing. Upon an infection with some viruses, virus-induced reorganization of mobile chromatin (ROCC) happens (proper). First, mobile chromatin turns into condensed (ROCC kind I), then, as viral DNA replication and productive an infection progress, the condensed chromatin turns into marginated alongside the periphery of the nucleus (ROCC kind II).


Of the completely different organized states of mobile chromatin, virus-induced ROCC stays the least understood and is the main focus of this Essay. Right here, we contemplate the insights that may be gained from contemplating the properties of the viruses that induce ROCC and study the elements recognized to contribute to virus-induced ROCC and the potential mechanisms that would mediate it. Given the ubiquity of virus-induced ROCC, a larger understanding will seemingly result in additional insights into how the viruses that induce it manipulate their hosts, and easy methods to intervene therapeutically of their life cycles.

What does virus-induced ROCC seem like?

5 widespread, profitable households of DNA viruses (herpesviruses, baculoviruses, adenoviruses, parvoviruses, and geminiviruses) share the shocking perform of inducing ROCC. Members of those households reorganize mobile chromatin throughout their productive infections (the time after they produce progeny virus), inflicting mobile DNA to pay attention on the periphery of the nucleus (Fig 2).


Fig 2. Virus-induced chromatin reorganization in contaminated cells.

Consultant photographs of chromatin reorganization upon (A) the lytic an infection of herpesvirus (EBV) and infections with (B) baculovirus (BmNPV) [8], (C) adenovirus (canine hepatitis virus; CAV-1) [9], (D) parvovirus (CPV) [10], and (E) geminivirus (TGMV) [11]. Photographs are tailored from their respective publications as indicated. Mobile DNA (fluorescent-tagged histones, or DAPI staining) and viral DNA (TGMV DNA probe) or viral proteins indicative of its replicative compartments (BMRF1, IE1, NS1) had been visualized as indicated. (A, B, D, E) Fluorescence microscopy photographs of contaminated cells and (C) an electron micrograph of an contaminated cell. Virus-induced ROCC could be noticed for every instance of contaminated cells, characterised by the condensation and margination of mobile chromatin throughout the cell nucleus. BMRF1, an early gene of EBV; IE1, baculovirus instant early protein 1; NS1, parvovirus nonstructural protein 1. In (C): MC, marginated chromatin; Ch, chromatin, VP, viral particles; H, halo; IB, inclusion physique; NM, nuclear membrane; No, nucleolus. Scale bars: (A) 20 μm, (B and E) 10 μm, (C) 1 μm, (D) 5 μm. BmNPV, Bombyx mori nucleopolyhedrovirus; CAV-1, canine adenovirus kind 1; CPV, canine parvovirus; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; ROCC, reorganization of mobile chromatin; TGMV, tomato golden mosaic virus.


Virus-induced ROCC was first famous about 75 years in the past, and since then, ROCC has been noticed for a number of viruses [12]. Early research of herpesvirus infections in embryonated eggs revealed alterations within the nuclei of contaminated cells and elevated concentrations of DNA on the periphery of the nuclei [12]. Later, electron microscopy and fluorescence microscopy research in herpesvirus-infected mammalian cells confirmed the discovering of marginated chromatin in productively contaminated cells [1316], per ROCC. Research of adenovirus infections revealed related phenomena: Electron microscopy assays of adenovirus infections confirmed that the virus induces a margination of DNA in contaminated nuclei [9], and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) localized the adenoviral DNA to the middle of contaminated nuclei, with the mobile DNA on the nuclear periphery [17]. Parvovirus an infection of mammalian cells with fluorescently tagged histones additionally induced an analogous condensation of the labeled chromatin to the nuclear rim [10]. Parallel approaches with geminiviruses demonstrated an analogous disposition of viral and mobile DNAs in contaminated plant cells [11,18,19]. And, baculoviruses, a virus household that infects a variety of bugs, equally reorganize mobile chromatin [8,20].

Early examples of virus-induced chromatin reorganization had been discovered via electron microscopy or immunofluorescence microscopy of mounted cells. Extra just lately, observations of ROCC in motion have been made doable by the event of strategies that enable the detection of viral DNA in reside cells. Polymers of bacterial DNA parts, comparable to parS from some Burkholderiales species or the lac operon from Escherichia coli, have been built-in into the viral DNA and detected upon binding particular fluorescent proteins. parS has been used to visualise ROCC in reside cells contaminated productively by adenoviruses and human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) [21,22]. The lac operon, on binding its repressor fused to mCherry, has been used to comply with the genomes of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) in latently contaminated cells induced to help the viral lytic (that’s, productive) cycle [23]. These viral genomes had been first amplified when the cells entered the start of S-phase, and the mobile chromatin was progressively compacted and marginated as compartments containing the amplifying viral DNA expanded.

A particular phenotype of virus-induced ROCC is noticed in 2 of the households however is prone to be typically required by all 5 virus households. Each geminiviruses and herpesviruses appear to condense mobile DNA previous to margination [7,19]. Geminiviral an infection of tobacco cells results in in depth condensation of mobile DNA, rendering it akin to “prophase-like fibers,” that are seemingly precursors to the compaction of host chromatin and its motion to the nuclear periphery [19]. Equally, blocking in depth viral DNA synthesis in EBV-infected cells induced to enter their productive section helps the condensation of mobile DNA, however not its margination [7]. It thus appears seemingly that the condensation of mobile chromatin precedes its margination. Accordingly, the condensation of chromatin with out its margination is termed ROCC kind I, and the condensed and marginated mobile chromatin is termed ROCC kind II (Fig 3). To grasp ROCC higher, it is going to be essential to check if each ROCC kind I and II are shared by all ROCC-inducing virus households.


Fig 3. Two varieties of chromatin reorganization in EBV lytic cells.

The development of reorganizing chromatin in EBV lytic cells could be described in 2 steps: ROCC kind I, characterised by host chromatin condensation with out margination; and ROCC kind II, outlined by each the condensation and margination of mobile chromatin to the periphery of the nucleus. ROCC kind I is triggered upon the formation of a viral DNA synthesis advanced and its initiation of synthesis. The in depth DNA synthesis that follows offers rise to ROCC kind II. The cell line used on this determine is the EBV-positive cell line, iD98/HR1 [23]. Sort I reorganization is detected by treating the lytic-induced cells with viral DNA synthesis inhibitors comparable to GCV or PAA. Shut examination of the DAPI channel of cells supporting kind II reorganization reveals DAPI alerts of decrease ranges throughout the “void” of the marginated chromatin. These alerts come from the newly synthesized viral genomes. Accordingly, these “void” areas have solely background ranges of eGFP-H2B alerts, indicating the histone-free state of those viral DNA molecules. Scale bar: 10 μm. EBV, Epstein–Barr virus; GCV, ganciclovir; PAA, phosphonoacetic acid; ROCC, reorganization of mobile chromatin.


What can we be taught from ROCC-inducing viruses?

The 5 households of ROCC-inducing viruses infect crops, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Though these virus households are various of their hosts, sizes, and buildings (Fig 4), additionally they share a number of important properties (Desk 1). Evaluating and contrasting the properties of those viruses supplies essential insights into the surprisingly frequent phenomenon of virus-induced ROCC, together with how these properties contribute to chromatin reorganization and what mediates it.


Fig 4. Bodily properties of the 5 ROCC-inducing virus households.

The virus particles and their DNA genomes of the ROCC-inducing households are depicted with their particles and genomes individually to scale. Whereas the diameters of the viral icosahedrons range roughly 7-fold [2429], the lengths of their corresponding DNAs range roughly 100-fold [3034]. The genomic DNAs of parvoviruses and geminiviruses are single-stranded; these of the three different households are double-stranded. Baculoviral and geminiviral DNAs are round; the others are linear molecules. Baculoviruses have rod-shaped capsids encapsidating their DNAs, whereas the others are icosahedral in form, with adenoviruses having fibers that protrude from the vertices [29,33]. Geminiviruses have “twin particles,” therefore their identify “gemini,” which means twins [27]. Each baculoviruses and herpesviruses have particles which might be enveloped, that’s, surrounded by lipid-containing membranes, whereas the opposite 3 households are nonenveloped. These envelopes are studded with a number of, distinct, virally encoded glycoproteins. d, capsid diameter (in nm), measured throughout opposing vertices. Genome size is given in nm (measured as linear molecules) and kilobase/kilobasepair (kb/kbp).


Common mechanistic insights

The primary perception comes from the genomic properties of those virus households. All 5 households are DNA viruses, though the type of their DNA differs, being both single-stranded or double-stranded when packaged. Their genome sizes cowl a broad vary, too: from 2.7 kb for geminiviruses as much as 240 kbps for members of the baculovirus and herpesvirus households (Fig 4). This roughly 100-fold span of genome lengths supplies an perception into their shared perform of reorganizing chromatin. The small genomes of geminiviruses and parvoviruses encode so few genes that it’s unlikely that they immediately mediate this reorganization. Quite, we have to search a mechanism that carries it out, not less than partly, utilizing host equipment.

A second perception could be derived from the character of the viral and mobile DNA synthesis in contaminated cells. In distinction to the virtually common dependence of ROCC-inducing virus households on their hosts’ RNA polymerases for transcription, the households of the three bigger viruses (herpesviruses, baculoviruses, and adenoviruses) encode their very own DNA polymerases [32,33,49]. Parvoviruses and geminiviruses, however, depend on the DNA replication equipment of their hosts [34,45,51]. A possible corollary could be discovered within the results of the replication of those viruses on their host DNA synthesis. Herpesviruses, baculoviruses, and adenoviruses inhibit mobile DNA synthesis, whether or not via the induction of cell cycle arrest or the inhibition of histone synthesis and/or mobile DNA synthesis itself [23,5254,64,65]. Parvoviruses can synthesize their DNA both within the absence of mobile DNA synthesis or in its presence, relying on which mobile DNA polymerases they use. For instance, human bocavirus 1 (HBoV1) can replicate in differentiated, nondividing cells utilizing the DNA restore polymerases Pol η and Pol κ within the absence of mobile DNA synthesis [55]. Against this, minute virus of mice (MVM) depends totally on Pol α and Pol δ (enzymes used throughout mobile synthesis) for its personal amplification in cells which might be synthesizing their very own DNA (private communication, Dr. Kinjal Majumder). Geminiviruses can induce host DNA synthesis in cells through which they replicate their DNA and likewise use Pol α and δ for his or her synthesis [51]. This various affiliation with chromosomal synthesis means that inhibition of mobile DNA synthesis will not be important for virus-induced ROCC.

The third perception into virus-induced chromatin reorganization could be gained from the commentary that each one 5 virus households package deal their genomes into their capsids throughout the host nucleus, and people packaged genomes are freed from mobile histones [59,6163,66]. This absence contrasts with the truth that all of them use histone-bound templates for transcribing their RNA, not less than at an early stage throughout their productive infections. A few of these viruses encode their very own histone-like proteins that bind to their DNA. For instance, the baculovirus protein P6.9 is a protamine-like protein that coats encapsidated genomes and is crucial for the manufacturing of infectious virus [35,61,62]. Adenoviruses additionally encode a histone-like protein, protein VII, which isn’t required for viral genomes to be packaged [63] however binds host chromatin to switch its composition [67]. Encapsidated herpesvirus genomes are additionally regarded as coated with polyamines [59]. Finally, for all 5 households, the viral genomes packaged of their virions are histone free. This absence of mobile histones in virus particles means that the viruses that induce ROCC must separate their very own histone-free, newly synthesized genomes, which shall be encapsidated, from the histone-bound mobile chromatin.

Which viral genes are concerned in ROCC?

Research with baculoviruses and herpesviruses have recognized viral genes required for the reorganization of chromatin. The transfection of three baculoviral genes and one among its DNA parts induces this reorganization in silkworm cells [20]. These genes, ie1, lef3, and p143, encode a transcriptional activator, single-stranded DNA-binding protein, and helicase, respectively. The DNA component hr can act as an enhancer and origin of replication [68]. The mixed capabilities of those 4 elements point out that the formation of a viral DNA synthesis advanced is probably going enough for baculoviruses to induce ROCC. Eradicating any of those 4 elements abrogates this capacity throughout baculovirus an infection [8].

Parallel findings from genetic analyses of EBV have proven that each one 7 of its important genes for productive or lytic DNA synthesis (balf5, balf2, bblf2/3, bblf4, bslf1, bmlf1, and bmrf1) and an origin specialised for lytic DNA synthesis (oriLyt) are required to induce chromatin reorganization [7]. Genetically knocking out one among these genes utterly abrogates the reorganization, whereas utilizing chemical inhibitors of viral DNA synthesis (thereby permitting solely the formation of a DNA synthesis advanced) helps the preliminary condensation of mobile chromatin with out its margination (Fig 3). Completion of EBV’s productive section results in full reorganization (ROCC kind II), through which mobile chromatin is condensed and has moved to the periphery of the nucleus. At this stage, as much as 30% of the DNA within the nucleus is chromatin-free, viral DNA [69]. The amplification of this viral DNA seemingly contributes mechanistically to kind II reorganization. Thus, it appears that evidently the preliminary chromatin condensation doesn’t require greater than the initiation of viral DNA synthesis, whereas the chromatin margination that follows requires in depth viral DNA synthesis. Proving that solely the initiation of viral DNA synthesis suffices for the preliminary chromatin condensation is one other uncertainty that shall be essential to resolve. This characteristic is a possible vulnerability of ROCC-inducing viruses.

Being a DNA virus is inadequate to induce ROCC

Whereas all of the viruses which have been recognized as able to inducing ROCC are DNA viruses, not all DNA viruses induce ROCC. Two distinguished properties shared by DNA viruses that induce ROCC are viral DNA replication throughout the host nucleus, and encapsidation of histone-free genomes throughout the virions. Accordingly, poxviruses, which replicate within the cytoplasm of their host cell, don’t have an effect on the distribution of chromatin within the nucleus [70]. Even inside households of DNA viruses that replicate their genomes within the host nucleus, some don’t induce this reorganization. For instance, polyomaviruses and papillomaviruses replicate within the nucleus of contaminated cells and don’t reorganize the host chromatin [7173]. One distinction that’s seemingly pivotal is that these viruses encapsidate their genomes as histone-bound DNA [7274], in distinction to ROCC-inducing viruses that encapsidate histone-free DNA.

SV40, a member of the polyomavirus household, was examined for its doable complementation for EBV’s oriLyt-mediated DNA amplification in selling the reorganization of chromatin. EBV-triggered chromatin reorganization and the replication of SV40 DNA proved to be incompatible [7]. SV40 can replicate its DNA in cells that carry EBV, however not in cells through which ROCC has been induced. The lytic section of EBV inhibits mobile DNA synthesis [23,75]; thus, the failure of mobile DNA synthesis is prone to have an effect on SV40 via a shared mechanism involving the inhibition of histone-associated DNA synthesis. Against this, virus-induced ROCC happens concurrently with the histone-free DNA synthesis that takes place when EBV replicates its DNA productively, a feat which will effectively prolong to different households of viruses that induce ROCC.

Potential mechanisms mediating virus-induced ROCC

Utilizing info gained from the properties shared by the viruses that induce ROCC (Desk 1), and an appreciation of the viral genes it requires [7,20], we will formulate some doable mechanisms for virus-induced ROCC. On this formulation, we assume that the 5 households of viruses that induce chromatin reorganization use frequent mechanisms.

Geminiviruses and parvoviruses, which encode only some genes, can induce a reorganization of their hosts’ chromatin. Their small coding capability, spanning 2.7 to five.2 kb, signifies that they can not encode all of the equipment wanted to condense chromatin into chromatid-like buildings [76]. Due to this fact, these viruses want to make use of mobile equipment to mediate this reorganization. One property that each one ROCC-inducing viruses share is that their encapsidated DNA lacks mobile histones, making it seemingly that their DNA is synthesized and not using a requirement for depositing histones on it. In uninfected cells, inhibiting histone synthesis, with its concomitant lower within the deposition of histones on newly synthesized DNA, inhibits fork development [77]. Inhibiting the deposition of histones additionally induces cell dying in uninfected cells [78]. Herpesviruses keep away from this histone dependence. For instance, in cells productively contaminated with HCMV, the virus particularly inhibits the synthesis of replication-dependent histones [52] whereas amplifying its DNA. In cells induced to help the lytic cycle of EBV, the virus inhibits chaperones related to replication-dependent histones to dam histone deposition whereas amplifying its DNA [23]. These shared properties help the notion that host cells acknowledge the atypical, newly synthesized, histone-free viral DNA and set off the preliminary DNA condensation of ROCC kind I (Fig 3). This condensation additionally happens with geminiviruses and herpesviruses [7,19,23] and is per the discovering that blocking the initiation of viral DNA synthesis by utilizing viral mutants null for a viral DNA polymerase blocks the triggering and the preliminary condensation of mobile DNA [7].

This preliminary chromatin condensation is adopted by the motion of mobile chromatin to the nuclear margins for all 5 households of ROCC-inducing viruses. This motion may very well be mediated by the growth of the websites of viral DNA amplification, as advised for baculoviruses [8]. The websites of viral DNA amplification, which are sometimes termed replication compartments (RCs), should not membrane certain, and, for parvoviruses, are discrete entities [79]. How the growth of RCs (which happens because the viral DNA is amplified in them) would possibly mechanistically mediate the condensation of host chromatin is unknown. Elucidating this mechanism is an excellent objective within the examine of ROCC.

One doable mechanism that would underlie the motion of the chromatin throughout ROCC kind II (Fig 3) is dependent upon liquid–liquid section separation (LLPS). Section separation of liquids happens when “there are two completely different compositions of all molecular species with the identical chemical potentials in each phases” [80]. The excessive native concentrations of viral proteins and nucleic acids could type liquid phases separated from different liquid areas of the nucleus, as happens for nucleoli [81]. In regular, uninfected cells, mobile chromatin seemingly exists in its personal section [82], and mitotic chromosomes clearly show LLPS [83], making LLPS a believable mechanism to mediate virus-induced ROCC. All viruses that elicit ROCC encode some replication proteins that bind the viral genomes. Provided that LLPS fosters the meeting of complexes that provoke DNA synthesis in Drosophila [84], a testable speculation is that the replication proteins and DNA of those viruses type a liquid section distinct from that of condensing chromatin.

Latest research utilizing HCMV help a mannequin through which LLPS contributes to the formation of ROCC kind II [85]. In these research, the UL112-113 protein merchandise of HCMV had been proven to type a liquid-like biomolecular condensate underneath a number of circumstances, together with throughout HCMV an infection, following transfection of UL112-113 into cells, and in vitro, utilizing purified UL112-113 proteins. The UL112-113 condensates are areas through which the polymerase processivity issue UL44 accumulates and viral DNA replication happens. As well as, the formation and upkeep of those UL112-113 condensates is disrupted by therapy with 1,6-hexanediol, a solvent for LLPS. These findings help a mannequin of ROCC kind II through which, on this instance, UL112-113 mediates the formation of RCs via LLPS and probably recruits to them a number of important replication proteins via the identical mechanism [85]. The identical examine additionally included an examination of UL112-113–constructive RCs utilizing fluorescence restoration after photobleaching (FRAP), each early and later in an infection because the compartments expanded. The early RCs recovered quickly and utterly from the photobleaching, whereas the mature compartments recovered slowly and solely partially. Liquid-like condensates can turn into much less fluid when there’s an elevated focus of their constituents, significantly these that may act as scaffolds, comparable to DNA and RNA [86]. Latest observations [85] subsequently help a mannequin for ROCC kind II through which the early RCs type via LLPS and turn into extra gel-like as they mature and the quantity of replicated DNA they include will increase.

The gel-like nature of the RCs of HCMV is shared by these of parvoviruses. FRAP analyses of cells contaminated by canine parvovirus have proven the diffusion of PCNA (a processivity issue for pol δ) in RCs to be greater than an order of magnitude slower than within the nuclei of uninfected cells [10]. Moreover, the discovering that the inhibitor of viral DNA synthesis, phosphonoacetic acid (PAA), doesn’t disrupt the formation of UL112-113–constructive, early compartments however does stop their maturation into extra gel-like condensates [85] is per the two-step mannequin proposed for EBV-induced ROCC [7]. Utilizing PAA to inhibit viral DNA amplification in EBV additionally leads to ROCC kind I [7], indicating that in depth viral DNA amplification is required to yield ROCC kind II, probably via LLPS.

Different latest research are serving to to clarify how amplifying viral DNA can transfer mobile chromatin to the periphery of the nucleus in ROCC kind II. Each chromatin and mitotic chromosomes behave as biomolecular, liquid-like condensates [82,83]. Tubulin, which is negatively charged, strikes the condensates containing fragmented chromosomes round in cells because it polymerizes [83]. The negatively charged, amplifying viral DNA might present a pressure, just like that of polymerizing tubulin, driving the chromatin condensates to the nuclear boundaries.

Whereas a job for LLPS in mediating the ROCC kind II is interesting, it isn’t established. An examination of RCs fashioned by herpes simplex virus kind I concluded that these compartments don’t come up solely from LLPS however happen from the amplifying viral DNA being largely freed from histones and serving as a beautiful reservoir for DNA-binding proteins comparable to RNA polymerase II [87]. What is obvious is {that a} function for increasing RCs in driving ROCC kind II stays interesting primarily based on parsimony: All viruses that elicit ROCC additionally type RCs separated from the marginated mobile chromatin.

Why would possibly viruses set off chromatin reorganization?

A just lately proposed megataxonomy of viruses signifies that virus-induced chromatin reorganization is prone to have arisen greater than as soon as within the evolution of the 5 households of ROCC-inducing viruses [88]. Viruses are polyphyletic, which means that many virus teams don’t share a standard ancestry. Within the proposed megataxonomy, the 5 households of viruses that induce ROCC largely belong to completely different realms, with Baculoviridae unable to be assigned into any realm, and Parvoviridae and Geminiviridae sharing a realm and kingdom [88]. As virus realms should not thought to share a standard ancestry, it’s seemingly that virus-induced ROCC arose individually in most of those 5 virus households. This convergent evolution underscores the significance of ROCC to the life cycles of the viruses that induce it.

How do the various viruses that induce this placing reorganization of their host’s chromatin profit from it? All specific important, early viral genes from chromatin-bound templates firstly of their productive infections. Members of those 5 households additionally regulate modifications of mobile histones [8993], presumably to optimize this early transcription. The transcription of viral structural genes for adenoviruses and herpesviruses happens as viral DNA is amplified and sure makes use of templates freed from nucleosomes [43,87,94]. For each EBV-infected and Kaposi’s sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV)-infected cells, late viral transcription happens on templates localized away from areas of condensed mobile chromatin [94,95]. By separating these viral transcription templates from mobile chromatin, ROCC seemingly favors viral RNA synthesis.

One other potential good thing about reorganizing mobile chromatin comes from condensed and inaccessible chromatin being related to a repression of gene expression. The nuclear periphery is often a repressive surroundings, through which case the virus-induced ROCC phenotype might intensify the repression of transcription from compacted chromatin, as present in lamina-associated domains (LADs) [96,97]. Stretches of mobile DNA that affiliate with lamin B1, a constituent of the nuclear lamina, have been mapped and prolong from 0.1 to 10 megabases in size [98] and, when summed over a number of cell varieties, can accommodate a 3rd of all mobile chromatin. Most genes inside these LADs are inhibited transcriptionally [99,100]. Sort II ROCC results in the mobile chromatin being condensed to the nuclear periphery, adjoining to the nuclear lamina [7,15]. It’s seemingly that this localization results in a rise in repression of mobile transcription, favoring the transcription of viral genes, thus contributing to virus-mediated host shutoff [101]. An evaluation of each mobile and viral transcription in the course of the early section of the lytic cycle of EBV helps this conclusion; the expression of 99% of mobile genes on common was inhibited 3-fold, whereas that of some viral genes was elevated 100-fold or extra [102]. Native an infection of tobacco leaves by the geminivirus tomato yellow leaf curl virus additionally impacts mobile gene expression, however much less considerably, inhibiting solely 64% of detected, differentially expressed genes [103]. Chromatin reorganization, subsequently, may gain advantage the viruses that induce it by suppressing host gene expression throughout manufacturing of progeny viruses.

What could be gained by understanding virus-induced ROCC?

Many viruses that harm human well being or our ecosystem additionally induce chromatin reorganization: Geminiviruses trigger billions of {dollars} in crop lack of beans, tomatoes, and cassava manufacturing yearly [104106]; parvoviruses trigger extreme illnesses in canine and cats and likewise are a serious reason behind infertility in pigs [107]; adenoviruses may cause respiratory sicknesses in people and infect a wide range of canines, inflicting, for instance, deadly infections in pink foxes [108]; baculoviruses had been feared for his or her risk to silkworms however have confirmed helpful in North America in controlling infestations of gypsy moths, that are damaging to hardwood bushes [33]; and herpesviruses trigger many illnesses in people, starting from rooster pox to cancers [109]. Chromatin reorganization could subsequently be a vulnerability shared by these viruses that we will exploit to restrict their pathogenesis.

Sadly, ROCC kind II, through which viral DNA synthesis expands to fill the facilities of contaminated nuclei because the mobile chromatin is moved to the periphery of the nuclei, could also be an intractable goal. These viruses all rely on some, however completely different, host cell capabilities to synthesize their DNA. Inhibiting kind II ROCC will seemingly require concentrating on mobile capabilities which might be additionally wanted by uninfected cells, subsequently making it deleterious to the host. Conversely, ROCC kind I, through which the chromosomal DNA is initially condensed, is a beautiful goal. Each geminiviruses and herpesviruses show this kind I phenotype. As these viruses have an effect on a variety of crops and vertebrates and have genomes that differ in measurement by 100-fold, it’s seemingly that each one 5 households additionally induce ROCC via an analogous, two-step development. The accessible knowledge point out that ROCC kind I is a mobile response, through which the contaminated cells acknowledge newly synthesized, histone-free viral DNA, which then triggers the preliminary mobile chromatin condensation. Characterizing this preliminary triggering mechanism could enable us to focus on virus-infected cells with out compromising uninfected cells throughout the host, thus serving to us to restrict the pathogenicity of those viruses.


DNA viruses typically kill contaminated cells after they produce their progeny. This killing is an final takeover. Nonetheless, viruses want additionally to control their hosts in order that as many progeny as doable could be produced previous to cell dying. 5 households of viruses orchestrate an surprising reorganization of their host cells’ chromatin as they amplify their very own DNA. By doing so, they spatially separate viral, transcribed DNA from that of the host, segregating the host’s chromatin to peripheral websites which might be extra prone to be transcriptionally silenced. This segregation is one doable technique to shutoff the host. Virus-induced chromatin reorganization additionally spatially separates the histone-free viral DNA to be encapsidated from the histone-bound mobile DNA. How they accomplish this multipronged takeover stays unsure, however the just lately appreciated LLPS is a candidate for mediating the motion of the mobile chromatin to the nuclear periphery. This dramatic takeover of the host nucleus by so many DNA viruses is fascinating, a wealthy supply for brand spanking new insights into how they so efficiently dominate their hosts, and a possible level for intervening therapeutically of their life cycles. Though a lot stays unsure about virus-induced ROCC, addressing excellent questions comparable to whether or not ROCC at all times happens in 2 phases and the way the preliminary chromatin condensation is triggered will assist to maneuver these preliminary observations in the direction of real-world purposes.


We thank Arthur Sugden for his inventive art work in Figs 1, 3 and 4. We additionally thank the authors of the analysis articles cited in Fig 2 for offering the photographs. And, we thank our lab colleagues for his or her vital insights for this Essay.


  1. 1.
    Moody ER, Mahendrarajah TA, Dombrowski N, Clark JW, Petitjean C, Offre P, et al. An estimate of the deepest branches of the tree of life from historic vertically evolving genes. elife. 2022;11:e66695. pmid:35190025
  2. 2.
    Kornberg RD. Chromatin construction: a repeating unit of histones and DNA. Science. 1974;184:868–871. pmid:4825889
  3. 3.
    Ou HD, Phan S, Deerinck TJ, Thor A, Ellisman MH, O’Shea CC. ChromEMT: Visualizing 3D chromatin construction and compaction in interphase and mitotic cells. Science. 2017;357:eaag0025. pmid:28751582
  4. 4.
    Cremer T, Cremer M. Chromosome territories. Chilly Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2:a003889. pmid:20300217
  5. 5.
    Taylor RC, Cullen SP, Martin SJ. Apoptosis: managed demolition on the mobile stage. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:231–241. pmid:18073771
  6. 6.
    Dickman M, Williams B, Li Y, de Figueiredo P, Wolpert T. Reassessing apoptosis in crops. Nat Vegetation. 2017;3:773–779. pmid:28947814
  7. 7.
    Rosemarie Q, Kirschstein E, Sugden B. How Epstein-Barr Virus Induces the Reorganization of Mobile Chromatin. MBio. 2023;14:e0268622. pmid:36625581
  8. 8.
    Nagamine T, Kawasaki Y, Abe A, Matsumoto S. Nuclear marginalization of host cell chromatin related to growth of two discrete virus-induced subnuclear compartments throughout baculovirus an infection. J Virol. 2008;82:6409–6418. pmid:18434402
  9. 9.
    Moulton JE, Frazier LM, Garg SP, Sekhri KK. Margination of chromatin in canine kidney cells contaminated with infectious canine hepatitis virus. Am J Vet Res. 1967;28:323–333. pmid:4166436
  10. 10.
    Ihalainen TO, Niskanen EA, Jylhävä J, Paloheimo O, Dross N, Smolander H, et al. Parvovirus induced alterations in nuclear structure and dynamics. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5948. pmid:19536327
  11. 11.
    Nagar S, Hanley-Bowdoin L, Robertson D. Host DNA replication is induced by geminivirus an infection of differentiated plant cells. Plant Cell. 2002;14:2995–3007. pmid:12468723
  12. 12.
    Crouse HV, Coriell LL, Clean H, Scott TFM. Cytochemical research on the intranuclear inclusion of herpes simplex. J Immunol. 1950;65:119–128. pmid:15436991
  13. 13.
    Puvion-Dutilleul F, Pedron J, Laithier M, Sheldrick P. Ultrastructural research on the nucleus of Herpes Simplex Virus Sort 1-infected Cells. Biol Cell. 1982;44:249–260.
  14. 14.
    Puvion-Dutilleul F. Molecular and practical significance of mobile modifications induced by herpes simplex virus an infection. Electron Microsc Rev. 1988;1:279–339. pmid:2856491
  15. 15.
    Monier Ok, Armas JC, Etteldorf S, Ghazal P, Sullivan KF. Annexation of the interchromosomal house throughout viral an infection. Nat Cell Biol. 2000;2:661–665. pmid:10980708
  16. 16.
    Strang BL, Boulant S, Chang L, Knipe DM, Kirchhausen T, Coen DM. Human cytomegalovirus UL44 concentrates on the periphery of replication compartments, the location of viral DNA synthesis. J Virol. 2012;86:2089–2095. pmid:22156516
  17. 17.
    Besse S, Puvion-Dutilleul F. Compartmentalization of mobile and viral DNAs in adenovirus kind 5 an infection as revealed by ultrastructural in situ hybridization. Chromosom Res. 1994;2:123–135. pmid:8032671
  18. 18.
    Speeding AE, Sunter G, Gardiner WE, Dute RR, Bisaro DM. Ultrastructural points of tomato golden mosaic virus an infection in tobacco. Phytopathology. 1987;77:1231–1236.
  19. 19.
    Bass H, Nagar S, Hanley-Bowdoin L, Robertson D. Chromosome condensation induced by geminivirus an infection of mature plant cells. J Cell Sci. 2000;113:1149–1160. pmid:10704366
  20. 20.
    Nagamine T, Kawasaki Y, Matsumoto S. Induction of a subnuclear construction by the simultaneous expression of baculovirus proteins, IE1, LEF3, and P143 within the presence of hr. Virology. 2006;352:400–407. pmid:16780915
  21. 21.
    Komatsu T, Quentin-Froignant C, Carlon-Andres I, Lagadec F, Rayne F, Ragues J, et al. In Vivo Labelling of Adenovirus DNA Identifies Chromatin Anchoring and Biphasic Genome Replication. J Virol. 2018;92:e00795–e00718. pmid:29997215
  22. 22.
    Mariamé B, Kappler-Gratias S, Kappler M, Balor S, Gallardo F, Bystricky Ok. Actual-Time Visualization and Quantification of Human Cytomegalovirus Replication in Dwelling Cells Utilizing the ANCHOR DNA Labeling Know-how. J Virol. 2018;92:e00571–e00518. pmid:29950406
  23. 23.
    Chiu YF, Sugden AU, Sugden B. Epstein-Barr viral productive amplification reprograms nuclear structure, DNA replication, and histone deposition. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14:607–618. pmid:24331459
  24. 24.
    Draganova EB, Valentin J, Heldwein EE. The Ins and Outs of Herpesviral Capsids: Divergent Buildings and Meeting Mechanisms throughout the Three Subfamilies. Viruses. 2021;13:1913. pmid:34696343
  25. 25.
    Heming JD, Conway JF, Homa FL. Herpesvirus Capsid Meeting and DNA Packaging. Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol. 2017;223:119–142. pmid:28528442
  26. 26.
    Russell WC. Adenoviruses: replace on construction and performance. J Gen Virol. 2009;90:1–20. pmid:19088268
  27. 27.
    Hesketh EL, Saunders Ok, Fisher C, Potze J, Stanley J, Lomonossoff GP, et al. The three.3 Å construction of a plant geminivirus utilizing cryo-EM. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2369. pmid:29915210
  28. 28.
    Xie Q, Bu W, Bhatia S, Hare J, Somasundaram T, Azzi A, et al. The atomic construction of adeno-associated virus (AAV-2), a vector for human gene remedy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:10405–10410. pmid:12136130
  29. 29.
    Liu H, Jin L, Koh SBS, Atanasov I, Schein S, Wu L, et al. Atomic construction of human adenovirus by cryo-EM reveals interactions amongst protein networks. Science. 2010;329:1038–1043. pmid:20798312
  30. 30.
    Lakeman AD, Osborn JE. Dimension of infectious DNA from human and murine cytomegaloviruses. J Virol. 1979;30:414–416. pmid:225527
  31. 31.
    Harrison BD, Barker H, Bock KR, Guthrie EJ, Meredith G, Atkinson M. Plant viruses with round single-stranded DNA. Nature. 1977;270:760–762.
  32. 32.
    Hoeben RC, Uil TG. Adenovirus DNA replication. Chilly Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5:a013003. pmid:23388625
  33. 33.
    Rohrmann GF. Baculovirus Molecular Biology [Internet]. 4th ed. Bethesda (MD): Nationwide Middle for Biotechnology Data (US); 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543458/
  34. 34.
    Zou W, Wang Z, Xiong M, Chen Y, Xu P, Ganaie SS, et al. Human Parvovirus B19 Makes use of Mobile DNA Replication. J Virol. 2018;92:e01881–e01817. pmid:29237843
  35. 35.
    Zhao S, He G, Yang Y, Liang C. Nucleocapsid Meeting of Baculoviruses. Viruses. 2019;11:595. pmid:31266177
  36. 36.
    Burnett RM. The construction of the adenovirus capsid. II. The packing symmetry of hexon and its implications for viral structure. J Mol Biol. 1985;185:125–143. pmid:4046035
  37. 37.
    Kaufmann B, Simpson AA, Rossmann MG. The construction of human parvovirus B19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:11628–11633. pmid:15289612
  38. 38.
    Weichert WS, Parker JS, Wahid AT, Chang SF, Meier E, Parrish CR. Assaying for structural variation within the parvovirus capsid and its function in an infection. Virology. 1998;250:106–117. pmid:9770425
  39. 39.
    Davies JW. Geminivirus genomes. Microbiol Sci. 1987;4:18–23. pmid:3153164
  40. 40.
    Kristie TM. Chromatin Modulation of Herpesvirus Lytic Gene Expression: Managing Nucleosome Density and Heterochromatic Histone Modifications. MBio. 2016;7:e00098–e00016. pmid:26884430
  41. 41.
    Tempera I, Lieberman PM. Epigenetic regulation of EBV persistence and oncogenesis. Semin Most cancers Biol. 2014;26:22–29. pmid:24468737
  42. 42.
    Volkman LE. Baculoviruses and nucleosome administration. Virology. 2015;476:257–263. pmid:25569454
  43. 43.
    Giberson AN, Davidson AR, Parks RJ. Chromatin construction of adenovirus DNA all through an infection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:2369–2376. pmid:22116065
  44. 44.
    Ben-Asher E, Bratosin S, Aloni Y. Intracellular DNA of the parvovirus minute virus of mice is organized in a minichromosome construction. J Virol. 1982;41:1044–1054. pmid:7097851
  45. 45.
    Luo Y, Qiu J. Human parvovirus B19: a mechanistic overview of an infection and DNA replication. Future Virol. 2015;10:155–167. pmid:26097496
  46. 46.
    Kushwaha NK, Mansi CS. The replication initiator protein of a geminivirus interacts with host monoubiquitination equipment and stimulates transcription of the viral genome. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13:e1006587. pmid:28859169
  47. 47.
    Pilartz M, Jeske H. Mapping of abutilon mosaic geminivirus minichromosomes. J Virol. 2003;77:10808–10818. pmid:14512531
  48. 48.
    Hanley-Bowdoin L, Bejarano ER, Robertson D, Mansoor S. Geminiviruses: masters at redirecting and reprogramming plant processes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11:777–788. pmid:24100361
  49. 49.
    Coen DM, Lawler JL, Abraham J. Herpesvirus DNA polymerase: Buildings, capabilities, and mechanisms. Enzyme. 2021;50:133–178. pmid:34861935
  50. 50.
    Weller SK, Coen DM. Herpes simplex viruses: Mechanisms of DNA replication. Chilly Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4:a013011. pmid:22952399
  51. 51.
    Wu M, Wei H, Tan H, Pan S, Liu Q, Bejarano ER, et al. Plant DNA polymerases α and δ mediate replication of geminiviruses. Nat Commun. 2021;12:2780. pmid:33986276
  52. 52.
    Albright ER, Morrison Ok, Ranganathan P, Carter DM, Nishikiori M, Lee JH, et al. Human cytomegalovirus lytic an infection inhibits replication-dependent histone synthesis and requires stem loop binding protein perform. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119:e2122174119. pmid:35344424
  53. 53.
    Paladino P, Marcon E, Greenblatt J, Frappier L. Identification of Herpesvirus Proteins That Contribute to G1/S Arrest. J Virol. 2014;88:4480–4492. pmid:24501404
  54. 54.
    Piña M, Inexperienced M, Biochemical research on adenovirus multiplication. XIV. Macromolecule and enzyme synthesis in cells replicating oncogenic and nononcogenic human adenovirus. Virology. 1969;38:573–586. pmid:5808220
  55. 55.
    Deng X, Yan Z, Cheng F, Engelhardt JF, Qiu J. Replication of an Autonomous Human Parvovirus in Non-dividing Human Airway Epithelium Is Facilitated via the DNA Injury and Restore Pathways. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12:e1005399. pmid:26765330
  56. 56.
    Xu P, Zhou Z, Xiong M, Zou W, Deng X, Ganaie SS, et al. Parvovirus B19 NS1 protein induces cell cycle arrest at G2-phase by activating the ATR-CDC25C-CDK1 pathway. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13:e1006266. pmid:28264028
  57. 57.
    Chen AY, Qiu J. Parvovirus infection-induced cell dying and cell cycle arrest. Futur Virol. 2010;5:731–743. pmid:21331319
  58. 58.
    Hardt N, Dinsart C, Spadari S, Pedrali-Noy G, Rommelaere J. Interrelation between viral and mobile DNA synthesis in mouse cells contaminated with the parvovirus minute virus of mice. J Gen Virol. 1983;64:1991–1998. pmid:6411861
  59. 59.
    Gibson W, Roizman B. Compartmentalization of spermine and spermidine within the herpes simplex virion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971;68:2818–2821. pmid:5288261
  60. 60.
    Johannsen E, Luftig M, Chase MR, Weicksel S, Cahir-McFarland E, Illanes D, et al. Proteins of purified Epstein-Barr virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101:16286–16291. pmid:15534216
  61. 61.
    Wang M, Tuladhar E, Shen S, Wang H, van Oers MM, Vlak JM, et al. Specificity of Baculovirus P6.9 Fundamental DNA-Binding Proteins and Crucial Function of the C Terminus in Virion Formation. J Virol. 2010;84:8821–8828. pmid:20519380
  62. 62.
    Tweeten KA, Bulla LA, Consigli RA. Characterization of an Extraordinarily Fundamental Protein Derived from Granulosis Virus Nucleocapsids. J Virol. 1980;33:866–876. pmid:16789190
  63. 63.
    Ostapchuk P, Suomalainen M, Zheng Y, Boucke Ok, Greber UF, Listening to P. The adenovirus main core protein VII is dispensable for virion meeting however is crucial for lytic an infection. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13:e1006455. pmid:28628648
  64. 64.
    Flint SJ, Plumb MA, Yang UC, Stein GS, Stein JL. Impact of adenovirus an infection on expression of human histone genes. Mol Cell Biol. 1984;4:1363–1371. pmid:6095065
  65. 65.
    Ooi BG, Miller LK. Regulation of host RNA ranges throughout baculovirus an infection. Virology. 1988;166:515–523. pmid:2459844
  66. 66.
    Zhao S, Li CI, Guo Y, Sheng Q, Shyr Y. RnaSeqSampleSize: actual knowledge primarily based pattern measurement estimation for RNA sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2018;19:191. pmid:29843589
  67. 67.
    Avgousti DC, Herrmann C, Kulej Ok, Pancholi NJ, Sekulic N, Petrescu J, et al. A core viral protein binds host nucleosomes to sequester immune hazard alerts. Nature. 2016;535:173–177. pmid:27362237
  68. 68.
    Wu Y, Carstens EB. Initiation of baculovirus DNA replication: early promoter areas can perform as infection-dependent replicating sequences in a plasmid-based replication assay. J Virol. 1996;70:6967–6972. pmid:8794340
  69. 69.
    Nagaraju T, Sugden AU, Sugden B. 4-dimensional analyses present that replication compartments are clonal factories through which Epstein-Barr viral DNA amplification is coordinated. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:24630–24638. pmid:31744871
  70. 70.
    Teferi WM, Desaulniers MA, Noyce RS, Shenouda M, Umer B, Evans DH. The vaccinia virus K7 protein promotes histone methylation related to heterochromatin formation. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0173056. pmid:28257484
  71. 71.
    Erickson KD, Bouchet-Marquis C, Heiser Ok, Szomolanyi-Tsuda E, Mishra R, Lamothe B, et al. Virion meeting factories within the nucleus of polyomavirus-infected cells. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8:e1002630. pmid:22496654
  72. 72.
    Germond JE, Hirt B, Oudet P, Gross-Bellark M, Chambon P. Folding of the DNA double helix in chromatin-like buildings from simian virus 40. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975;72:1843–1847. pmid:168578
  73. 73.
    Favre M, Breitburd F, Croissant O, Orth G. Chromatin-Like Buildings Obtained After Alkaline Disruption of Bovine and Human Papillomavirus. J Virol. 1977;21:1205–1209.
  74. 74.
    Porter SS, Liddle JC, Browne Ok, Pastrana DV, Garcia BA, Buck CB, et al. Histone Modifications in Papillomavirus Virion Minichromosomes. MBio. 2021;12:e03274–e03220. pmid:33593981
  75. 75.
    Kudoh A, Fujita M, Kiyono T, Kuzushima Ok, Sugaya Y, Izuta S, et al. Reactivation of lytic replication from B cells latently contaminated with Epstein-Barr virus happens with excessive S-phase cyclin-dependent kinase exercise whereas inhibiting mobile DNA replication. J Virol. 2003;77:851–861. pmid:12502801
  76. 76.
    Shintomi Ok, Takahashi TS, Hirano T. Reconstitution of mitotic chromatids with a minimal set of purified elements. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17:1014–1023. pmid:26075356
  77. 77.
    Mejlvang J, Feng Y, Alabert C, Neelsen KJ, Jasencakova Z, Zhao X, et al. New histone provide regulates replication fork pace and PCNA unloading. J Cell Biol. 2014;204:29–43. pmid:24379417
  78. 78.
    Takami Y, Ono T, Fukagawa T, Shibahara Ok, Nakayama T. Important function of chromatin meeting factor-1-mediated speedy nucleosome meeting for DNA replication and cell division in vertebrate cells. Mol Biol Cell. 2007;18:129–141. pmid:17065558
  79. 79.
    Cziepluch C, Lampel S, Grewenig A, Grund C, Lichter P, Rommelaere J. H-1 parvovirus-associated replication our bodies: a definite virus-induced nuclear construction. J Virol. 2000;74:4807–4815. pmid:10775619
  80. 80.
    Hyman AA, Weber CA, Jülicher F. Liquid-liquid section separation in biology. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30:39–58. pmid:25288112
  81. 81.
    Brangwynne CP, Mitchison TJ, Hyman AA. Energetic liquid-like conduct of nucleoli determines their measurement and form in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:4334–4339. pmid:21368180
  82. 82.
    Gibson BA, Doolittle LK, Schneider MWG, Jensen LE, Gamarra N, Henry L, et al. Group of Chromatin by Intrinsic and Regulated Section Separation. Cell. 2019;179:470–484.e21. pmid:31543265
  83. 83.
    Schneider MWG, Gibson BA, Otsuka S, Spicer MFD, Petrovic M, Blaukopf C, et al. A mitotic chromatin section transition prevents perforation by microtubules. Nature. 2022;609:183–190. pmid:35922507
  84. 84.
    Parker MW, Bell M, Mir M, Kao JA, Darzacq X, Botchan MR, et al. A brand new class of disordered parts controls DNA replication via initiator self-assembly. elife. 2019;8:e48562. pmid:31560342
  85. 85.
    Caragliano E, Bonazza S, Frascaroli G, Tang J, Soh TK, Grünewald Ok, et al. Human cytomegalovirus types phase-separated compartments at viral genomes to facilitate viral replication. Cell Rep. 2022;38:110469. pmid:35263605
  86. 86.
    Caragliano E, Brune W, Bosse JB. Herpesvirus Replication Compartments: Dynamic Biomolecular Condensates? Viruses. 2022;14:960. pmid:35632702
  87. 87.
    McSwiggen DT, Hansen AS, Teves SS, Marie-Nelly H, Hao Y, Heckert AB, et al. Proof for DNA-mediated nuclear compartmentalization distinct from section separation. elife. 2019;8:e47098. pmid:31038454
  88. 88.
    Koonin EV, Dolja VV, Krupovic M, Varsani A, Wolf YI, Yutin N, et al. World Group and Proposed Megataxonomy of the Virus World. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2020;84:e00061–e00019. pmid:32132243
  89. 89.
    Mattola S, Salokas Ok, Aho V, Mäntylä E, Salminen S, Hakanen S, et al. Parvovirus nonstructural protein 2 interacts with chromatin-regulating mobile proteins. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18:e1010353. pmid:35395063
  90. 90.
    Castillo-González C, Liu X, Huang C, Zhao C, Ma Z, Hu T, et al. Geminivirus-encoded TrAP suppressor inhibits the histone methyltransferase SUVH4/KYP to counter host protection. elife. 2015;4:e06671. pmid:26344546
  91. 91.
    Horwitz GA, Zhang Ok, McBrian MA, Grunstein M, Kurdistani SK, Berk AJ. Adenovirus small e1a alters international patterns of histone modification. Science. 2008;321:1084–1085. pmid:18719283
  92. 92.
    Shoji Ok, Kokusho R, Kawamoto M, Suzuki Y, Katsuma S. H3K4me3 histone modification in baculovirus-infected silkworm cells. Virus Genes. 2021;57:459–463. pmid:34185196
  93. 93.
    Herrera FJ, Triezenberg SJ. VP16-dependent affiliation of chromatin-modifying coactivators and underrepresentation of histones at immediate-early gene promoters throughout herpes simplex virus an infection. J Virol. 2004;78:9689–9696. pmid:15331701
  94. 94.
    Djavadian R, Chiu YF, Johannsen E. An Epstein-Barr Virus-Encoded Protein Advanced Requires an Origin of Lytic Replication In Cis to Mediate Late Gene Transcription. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12:e1005718. pmid:27348612
  95. 95.
    Chen CP, Lyu Y, Chuang F, Nakano Ok, Izumiya C, Jin D, et al. Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Related Herpesvirus Hijacks RNA Polymerase II To Create a Viral Transcriptional Manufacturing unit. J Virol. 2017;91:e02491–e02416. pmid:28331082
  96. 96.
    van Steensel B, Belmont AS. Lamina-Related Domains: Hyperlinks with Chromosome Structure, Heterochromatin, and Gene Repression. Cell. 2017;169:780–791. pmid:28525751
  97. 97.
    Briand N, Collas P. Lamina-associated domains: peripheral issues and inside affairs. Genome Biol. 2020;21:85. pmid:32241294
  98. 98.
    Guelen L, Pagie L, Brasset E, Meuleman W, Faza MB, Talhout W, et al. Area group of human chromosomes revealed by mapping of nuclear lamina interactions. Nature. 2008;453:948–951. pmid:18463634
  99. 99.
    Finlan LE, Sproul D, Thomson I, Boyle S, Kerr E, Perry P, et al. Recruitment to the nuclear periphery can alter expression of genes in human cells. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e1000039. pmid:18369458
  100. 100.
    Akhtar W, de Jong J, Pindyurin AV, Pagie L, Meuleman W, de Ridder J, et al. Chromatin place results assayed by 1000’s of reporters built-in in parallel. Cell. 2013;154:914–927. pmid:23953119
  101. 101.
    Casco A, Johannsen E. EBV Reactivation from Latency Is a Degrading Expertise for the Host. Viruses. 2023;15:726. pmid:36992435
  102. 102.
    Buschle A, Mrozek-Gorska P, Cernilogar FM, Ettinger A, Pich D, Krebs S, et al. Epstein-Barr virus inactivates the transcriptome and disrupts the chromatin structure of its host cell within the first section of lytic reactivation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:3217–3241. pmid:33675667
  103. 103.
    Wu M, Ding X, Fu X, Lozano-Duran R. Transcriptional reprogramming brought on by the geminivirus Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in native or systemic infections in Nicotiana benthamiana. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:542. pmid:31272383
  104. 104.
    Hema M, Sreenivasulu P, Patil BL, Kumar PL, Reddy DVR. Tropical meals legumes: virus illnesses of financial significance and their management. Adv Virus Res. 2014;90:431–505. pmid:25410108
  105. 105.
    Patil BL, Fauquet CM. Cassava mosaic geminiviruses: precise information and views. Mol Plant Pathol. 2009;10:685–701. pmid:19694957
  106. 106.
    Beam Ok, Ascencio-Ibáñez JT. Geminivirus Resistance: A Minireview. Entrance Plant Sci. 2020;11:1131. pmid:32849693
  107. 107.
    Streck AF, Truyen U. Porcine Parvovirus. Curr Points Mol Biol. 2020;37:33–46. pmid:31822635
  108. 108.
    Walker D, Payment SA, Hartley G, Learmount J, O’Hagan MJH, Meredith AL, et al. Serological and molecular epidemiology of canine adenovirus kind 1 in pink foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the UK. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36051. pmid:27796367
  109. 109.
    Burrell CJ, Howard CR, Murphy FA. Fenner and White’s Medical Virology. fifth ed. Educational Press; 2016.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here