BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 962915 |

Ching-Yuan Cheng, Pei-I Chi, Hung-Jen Liu, "Commentary on the Regulation of Viral Proteins in Autophagy Process", BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 962915, 8 pages, 2014.

Commentary on the Regulation of Viral Proteins in Autophagy Process

Academic Editor: Wei-Li Hsu
Received14 Dec 2013
Accepted04 Feb 2014
Published10 Mar 2014


The ability to subvert intracellular antiviral defenses is necessary for virus to survive as its replication occurs only in the host cells. Viruses have to modulate cellular processes and antiviral mechanisms to their own advantage during the entire virus life cycle. Autophagy plays important roles in cell regulation. Its function is not only to catabolize aggregate proteins and damaged organelles for recycling but also to serve as innate immunity to remove intracellular pathogenic elements such as viruses. Nevertheless, some viruses have evolved to negatively regulate autophagy by inhibiting its formation. Even more, some viruses have employed autophagy to benefit their replication. To date, there are more and more growing evidences uncovering the functions of many viral proteins to regulate autophagy through different cellular pathways. In this review, we will discuss the relationship between viruses and autophagy and summarize the current knowledge on the functions of viral proteins contributing to affect autophagy process.

1. Introduction

Autophagy is an intracellular degradative process including macroautophagy, microautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) [1]. In this review, we focus on the regulation of viral proteins in microautophagy (referred here as autophagy) process. Autophagy can take place in a manner of selected or nonselected catabolic process via the lysosomal pathway as compared to ubiquitin-proteasome degradation. Under starvation stress, autophagy provides the energy source for cell survival by degradation of the unwanted substance. Besides, autophagy is responsible for removing the damaged organelles caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) [2]. Impaired autophagy had been found closely related to many pathological conditions, such as neurological disorders, aging, diabetes, and cancer [3]. Autophagy is also involved in the innate and adaptive immunity system to resist pathogen infection by viruses and bacteria [4, 5].

Many signaling pathways are involved in activation of autophagy. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is one of the main negative mediators of autophagy. While the upstream negative regulators of mTOR such as phosphatase and tensin deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN), AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), p53, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α (eIF2α), and c-jun-N-terminal kinase (JNK1) in turn function as activators of autophagy [6]. When mTOR is repressed, the interaction between mTOR and ULK1 (Atg1) become weak, therefore, resulting in hypophosphorylation of ULK1 as well as Atg13. The activated hypophosphorylated ULK1 is then associated with Atg13 and Atg17 to form a complex that promotes the initial stage of autophagy [7]. During this initiation step of autophagy, the Beclin 1 formed the complex with Vps34 and Atg14 that was essential for phagophore formation [8]. Members of the Bcl-2 family acted as inhibitors in this stage [9]. In the second step, elongation of the isolated membrane triggered the formation of double-layer phospholipid membrane that can engulf organelles. Activations of Atg7 and Atg10 catalyzed the formation of Atg12-Atg5-Atg16 complex [10]. On the other hand, the C-terminal arginine 117 residue of newly synthesized Atg8 is initially cleaved by the Atg4 in order to expose a glycine residue [11]. The Gly-terminal residue of Atg8 is then bound to the active cysteine 507 of Atg7 and then activated by Atg7 (an E1-like enzyme). The activated Atg8 is then transferred to another E2-like enzyme (Atg3). Finally, Atg8 is conjugated to the phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) by an amide bond between the C-terminal glycine of Atg8 and the amino group of PE [12]. Both of these two conjugation systems were important in promoting the elongated membrane curvature, thereby, resulting in the autophagosome formation. The third step of autophagy was the docking and fusion of autophagosome with lysosome through the assistances of LAMP2 and Rab7 proteins [13]. The inner membrane of autophagosome and organelles that were engulfed earlier were broken down into small molecules by lysosome enzymes such as cathepsins B, D, and L [3]. Finally, those small molecules were exported to cytoplasm and recycled as new sources for further uses.

Recently, growing numbers of studies have discovered that autophagy seems to involve in life cycle of some viruses. It is not surprised that xenophagy, a form of autophagy, is the cellular intrinsic immune system against viruses. Therefore, the suppression in autophagy provides virus with a way to overcome the cellular defense mechanisms. Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) inhibits cellular autophagy to facilitate viral replication in infected cells [14]. The elevated expression of Beclin 1 resulted in reduction of virus replication of both herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and sindbis virus [15, 16]. Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and simian immunodeficiency virus type 1 (SIV 1) both had been reported to inhibit autophagy through different strategies [1719]. Even though the autophagy is thought to be an intracellular antiviral system, however, numbers of viruses have been found to activate autophagy instead of repression. Previous studies have indicated that infections of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and varicella zoster virus (VZV) caused induction of autophagy [20, 21]. Furthermore, avian reoviruses (ARVs), coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3), dengue virus, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and influenza A virus (IAV) not only induced autophagy but also upregulated autophagy to enhance virus replication [2226]. Interestingly, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) suppresses the late stages of autophagy [27]; however, it has been reported that autophagy-related genes appear to facilitate HIV infection [28]. The different stages of autophagy might play different roles in virus life cycles. Formation of autophagosomes has been proposed to offer the platform for viral replication and viral assembly, like HIV-1 [18, 29]. Degradation of the lipids in the late stage of autophagy can provide the energy source for viral replication as dengue virus (DENV) [30]. Some viruses, like CVB3, trigger incomplete autophagy flux for their own benefits [3]. Furthermore, it has been reported that ARV triggers the fusion of autophagosome with lysosome into autolysosome without completing the autophagy flux [22]. How the virus regulates this incomplete autophagy process and what kinds of advantage this process brings to viruses still remain unclear.

2. The Contributions of Viral Proteins in Regulating Signaling Pathways of Autophagy

Many viral proteins have been demonstrated to play important roles in autophagy regulation either by interacting with autophagy-related proteins or by modulating the signaling pathways that affect the autophagy. Here we will focus on the regulations of Beclin 1/Vps34 complex, PKR/eIF2α signaling pathway, the autophagy pathways, mTOR signaling pathway, and cytoprotective signaling pathways and briefly summarize the roles of these well-characterized viral proteins in regulation of autophagy, as shown in Table 1.

Viral proteinVirusActivator or suppressor of autophagyReferences

E1 proteinHCVS[84]
NefHIV-1A[18, 72]
Glycoprotein BHSV-1S[76]
Us11HSV-1S[48, 49, 51, 52]
M2 proteinIAVA[67]
v-cyclinKSHVA[81, 86]
vBcl-2KSHV/ HV-68S[9]
m142 & m143MCMVS[53, 54]
nsP4RotavirusA[70, 71]
S proteinSARS-CoVA[77, 78]
Small T antigenSV40A[73, 74]

S: suppressor; bA: activator.
2.1. Regulation of Beclin 1/Vps34 Complex
2.1.1. The Bcl-2-Like Viral Protein

HSV-1 is a 152 kb double-stranded DNA virus, belonging to the α-herpesvirus family. HSV-1 negatively regulates autophagy during infection [31]. The γ134.5 gene of HSV-1 encodes ICP34.5 protein, consisting of 263 amino acids. This protein has three domains including an N-terminal region, a linker region of Ala-Thr-Pro repeats, and a C-terminal region [32, 33]. It regulates cellular autophagy via two distinctive mechanisms. The N-terminal region of ICP34.5 possesses a Beclin 1 binding domain, which mimics the inhibitory effect of the cellular Bcl-2 protein, thereby, preventing Beclin 1 to bind with the PI3KC3- (phosphoinositide 3-kinase class III-) UVRAG (UV irradiation resistance-associated gene) complex. Beclin 1 is a critical component of PI3KC3 complex that triggers the initiation of autophagy, and its function is suppressed through interaction of Bcl-2 with the BH3 domain of Beclin 1 [34]. The HCMV protein TRS1 and the viral homologues of Bcl-2 of Kaposi’s sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV) and murine gamma herpesvirus 68 (γHV-68) have been also shown to inhibit the formation of autophagosomes through their binding to Beclin 1 [9, 35, 36].

2.1.2. The Hepatitis B Virus X Protein (HBx)

HBV is a double-strand DNA virus, a member of the hepadnavirus family. Its DNA genome contains four genes named S, C, P, and X, respectively. The HBx protein encoded by the X gene serves as a multifunctional regulatory protein since it is involved in regulating cell cycle, signaling transduction, and cellular apoptotic pathways [37]. HBV can enhance autophagic flux in cell culture and transgenic mouse liver and during natural infection. Enhancement of autophagy caused by HBV is now believed by the contribution of HBx [38]. In accordance with the results of coimmunoprecipitation assays performed by Sir et al., it was discovered that HBx can directly bind to Vps34, the catalytic subunit of PI3KC3, to promote the activity of PI3KC3. The HBx-induced autophagy benefits HBV DNA replication rather than RNA transcription. Furthermore, autolysosomes were not involved in HBV replication, since treatment of cells with bafilomycin to suppress formation of autolysosomes showed no effects on HBV DNA replication [38].

2.2. Regulation of PKR/eIF2α Signaling Pathway
2.2.1. The Regulators of Protein Phosphatase 1 (PP1)

In addition to inhibition of autophagy by binding to Beclin 1, ICP34.5 can also regulate autophagy through regulation of eIF2α. eIF2α plays a central role in the maintenance of mRNA translation. Phosphorylation of eIF2α at Ser51 shuts off protein translation and stimulates autophagy [39]; therefore, eIF2α can be regarded as a modulator of autophagy. The C-terminal region of ICP34.5 contains a consensus binding motif (R/KVXF) for PP1 followed by an Ala-Arg-rich motif, that is, highly homologous to the C-terminal region of mammalian growth arrest and DNA damage protein 34 (GADD34) [4042]. More recently, the amino acids residues 233–248 in the ICP34.5 (homology region of GADD34) were verified as a binding site of eIF2α. It has been also demonstrated that the binding between ICP34.5 and eIF2α is crucial for specific dephosphorylation of eIF2α by PP1, thus facilitating the initiation of protein translation and, as a result, suppressing autophagy [43]. The African swine fever virus (ASFV) DP71L protein and the pseudorabies virus (PRV) IE180 protein act similarly to ICP34.5 to abolish phosphorylation of eIF2α by regulating PP1 [44, 45].

2.2.2. Us11

Us11, a late γ2 gene product, is a viral protein abundantly produced in the late stage of HSV-1 life cycle. Like ICP34.5, Us11 is involved in inhibition of eIF2α phosphorylation. Earlier studies have shown that Us11-null viruses grow normally in vitro and are slightly attenuated in vivo, suggesting that the function of Us11 may be compensated by the extant ICP34.5 [46, 47]. Nevertheless, Us11 acts in concert with ICP34.5 to inhibit autophagy through a mechanism totally different from that in which ICP34.5 is involved. Us11 blocks the kinase activity of protein kinase R (PKR) via directly binding to either PKR or upstream activators of PKR. Since eIF2α is the substrate of PKR, the PKR binding domain located between amino acids residues 91–121 close to the C-terminus of Us11 contributes to physical association with PKR, resulting in a reduction of eIF2α phosphorylation [48]. A previous investigation demonstrated that the truncated Us11 mutants without its N-terminus failed to inhibit poly- (I·C-) induced autophagy in HeLa cells stably expressing GFP-LC3, indicating that the N-terminal region of Us11 is critical for inhibition of autophagy [49].

It has been well-known that PKR is transcriptionally induced by interferon and activated by double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The C-terminus of Us11 contains an Arg/Pro-rich RNA binding domain (amino acids residues 91–152), which can bind to dsRNA to dampen the stimulation of PKR [50]. In addition, Us11 also can interact with activators of interferon, including retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I), melanoma-associated differentiation gene 5 (MDA-5), and the protein activator of the interferon-induced protein kinase (PACT), to inhibit the production of interferon through its C-terminal RNA binding domain [51, 52].

2.2.3. Murine Cytomegalovirus (MCMV) m142 and m143 Proteins

MCMV is a DNA virus in the Herpesviridae family. MCMV gene expression and/or viral replication can cause accumulation of dsRNA in infected cells. However, activation of the PKR-mediated antiviral response by dsRNA is counteracted by viral m142 and m143 proteins during MCMV infection. Both m142 and m143 proteins are important for MCMV replication and both of them are essential for inhibition of PKR and subsequent eIF2α phosphorylation [53]. To exert its role in inactivating PKR, m142 associates with m143 to form a stable heterotetramer complex including two molecules of m142, and each one binds to a monomer of m143. The m142-m143 multimer directly binds to PKR as well as to dsRNA to prevent PKR activation, resulting in relocalization of PKR into the nucleus and into an insoluble cytoplasmic compartment. Thus, PKR is unable to shut off cellular translation and to repress viral replication [54].

2.2.4. ARV Nonstructural Protein p17

ARVs are double-strand RNA viruses that are classified as the members of Reoviridae family. ARV enters host cells via the caveolin 1-mediated endocytic pathway [55] and its replication occurs in the cytoplasm of infected cells [56]. The nonstructural protein p17 is encoded by the S1 genome segment of ARV with 146 amino acids [57]. It shuttles between the nucleus and the cytoplasm to affect signaling pathways involved in cell growth, paving a way for effective viral production [58, 59]. Our group has demonstrated that p17 is the protein responsible for ARV-induced host cell cycle arrest and autophagosome formation [22, 59]. Ectopically expression of p17 in both immortalized chicken embryo fibroblast (DF-1) cells and African green monkey kidney (Vero) cells by transfection with a p17-expressing plasmid caused phosphorylation of eIF2α that led to induction of autophagy [22]. It was also demonstrated that p17 triggered autophagy via activations of PTEN and AMPK to negatively regulate the function of mTORC1 [22]. We therefore considered that the p17 protein serves as an autophagy inducer in the life cycle of ARV.

2.3. Regulation of Autophagy Pathway
2.3.1. The cFLIP-Like Viral Protein

Some γ-herpesvirus encode a viral protein homologous to the cellular FLICE-like inhibitor protein (cFLIP), such as KSHV vFLIP, herpesvirus saimiri (HVS) vFLIP, and molluscum contagiosum virus (MCV) 159L [60]. The cFLIP protein that has been identified exists in 3 forms based on their variable C-terminus. It also contains 2 death effector domains (DED) at the N-terminus. The FLIP is involved in negative regulation of cellular apoptosis induced by the activation of specific proapoptotic receptors on the cell surface, including Fas/CD95, DR4, and DR5 death receptors that associate with TNF-α-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), and tumor necrosis factor-α receptor 1 (TNFR1). Moreover, these ligand-receptor complexes interact with tumor necrosis factor receptor type 1-associated death domain protein (TRADD) and Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD) to form the death-inducing signaling complex (DISC) which in turn activates the downstream caspase signaling cascade to induce apoptosis [61]. Due to structural similarity of FLIP to procaspase-8, which is as the initiator caspase in the caspase-dependent pathways, FLIP forms a heterodimer with procaspase-8, which becomes inactive, and therefore limiting the amount of procaspase-8 binding to DISC [62].

A recent study has unveiled another role of vFLIP in autophagy regulation. vFLIP can block cellular autophagy by binding Atg3 E2-like enzyme with its DEDs. Atg3 is a critical enzyme that mediates lipidation and conjugation of LC3 to promote autophagosome biogenesis. Interaction between vFLIP and Atg3 prevents LC3 from binding with Atg3. As a result, a reduction of autophagy occurs in virus-infected cells [60]. Exemplified by KSHV, a model was consequently proposed that it expresses vFLIP within viral latency program to subvert autophagy and to facilitate its own replication in virus-infected cells. Despite the ability of vFLIP binding to Atg3 to inhibit autophagy, Ritthipichai et al. have recently reported that rhesus monkey rhadinovirus vFLIP can enhance the autophagosome formation via an unknown mechanism in order to inhibit cellular apoptosis [63]. The functions of vFLIP expressed by different viruses seem somehow manifold in regulation of cell proliferation.

2.3.2. CHIKV nsP2 Protein

CHIKV is an enveloped virus with a positive-strand RNA genome belonging to the Alphavirus genus. It triggers an autophagy response in infected human-cultured cells to promote viral replication [64]. CHIKV encodes 4 nonstructural proteins (nsP1 to nsP4) which are important for virus replication. During infection, nsPs bind to viral RNA to form replicative complexes (RC), thereby resulting in RCs to anchor into the subcellular membranes situated around the nucleus for viral protein synthesis. Among these nsPs, the nsP2 had been identified as an essential component of RCs [65]. Furthermore, the nsP2 can use the autophagy machinery to help virus replication through the binding to the human autophagy receptor NDP52. The experimental results of yeast two-hybrid system have shown that the C-terminal domain of nsP2 is responsible for the interaction with the coiled-coil domain of NDP52. In addition, it has been demonstrated that NDP52 colocalized with the trans-Golgi network associated RCs containing nsPs and dsRNA, while knockdown of NDP52 by using siRNA specific to NDP52 strikingly decreased CHIKV replication [66]. These data described above provide evidences suggesting that NDP52 can promote CHIKV replication via nsP2, although the detailed mechanism remains unclear.

2.3.3. Viral Proteins That Interfere with the Progress of Autophagy

Many viruses have evolved to trigger an incomplete autophagy response in virus-infected cells to benefit their replications. For example, the M2 protein encoded by IAV is sufficient to induce cellular autophagy response [67]. Nevertheless, it can also block the fusion between autophagosomes and lysosomes, leading to accumulation of autophagosomes. Study of M2 protein has provided a possible mechanism in which blockade of autophagolysosome formation is through the interaction of M2 protein to Beclin 1 [68, 69]. Such blockade may enhance the retention time of viral proteins and RNA in infected cells. Rotavirus nsP4 protein can induce autophagy as well, and it binds to autophagosomes to prevent the autophagolysosome formation. The nsP4 protein of rotavirus is likely to recruit autophagosomal membrane to viroplasm to promote virus replication, wherein the viral RNA is replicated [70, 71]. Similarly, HIV-1 induces the autophagic vacuoles in macrophages during infection to enhance its replication, and its Nef protein blocks the maturation of autophagolysosomes to prevent Gag proteins from degradation [18, 72].

2.4. mTOR Signaling Pathway

Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a DNA virus that belongs to Polyomaviridae family. SV40, like other polyomaviruses, is potentially oncogenic (tumor causing). The small T antigen (ST) has 174 amino acid residues encoded by the SV40 early region. Studies that focused on the function of ST have linked the relationship between ST and the mechanism by which cancer cells can survive under condition of nutrient deprivation. ST binds to protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A), a primary serine/threonine phosphatase in mammalian cells, with its C-terminal domain to form a stable complex, disabling PP2A and resulting in disturbance of cellular progress [73]. Under glucose deprivation, the phosphorylation level of AMPK was increased in human foreskin fibroblasts expressing ST, and the rate of cell death was decreased in contrast to that of cells without expressing ST [74]. When AMPK is phosphorylated at Thr172 to become an active form, it directly phosphorylates TSC2 at Sre1387 and the mTORC1 subunit raptor at Ser722 and Ser792 to inhibit cell growth, thus inducing autophagy pathways for energy acquirement [75]. SV40 ST acts in cancer cells to maintain energy homeostasis during glucose deprivation by inhibiting the mTOR signaling pathway which is likely responsible for activation of autophagy.

2.5. Regulation of Cytoprotective Signaling Pathways
2.5.1. The Unfolded Protein Response (UPR)

UPR is an alarm system for cells in response to the accumulation of unfolded or misfolded proteins in the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), triggering formation of autophagy to digest and clean these unwanted proteins. There are three main pathways activated upon UPR induction, including transcription factor 6 (ATF6), PKR-like ER kinase (PERK), and inositol-requiring kinase 1 (IRE-1) [76]. A number of viruses that have been characterized encode proteins modifying autophagy through UPR to their own advantages during infection. For example, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) modulates UPR by activating PERK protein kinase by its viral spike (S) protein [77, 78], while the E protein encoded by the envelope gene downregulates the IRE-1 signaling pathway [79]. HCMV protein pUL38, like the small surface protein (HBs) of HBV, is capable of activating the key components of PERK pathway, including PERK, eIF2α, and transcription factor 4 (ATF4) [80, 81]. The latent membrane protein 1 (LMP-1) of EBV upregulates all three signaling pathways of UPR that have been described previously [76, 82]. Moreover, West Nile virus requires ATF6 signaling for its replication, and a viral protein responsible for regulating ATF6 signaling still remains to be determined [83]. On the contrary, HSV-1 glycoprotein B (gB), HCV cytosolic envelope protein E1, and CHIKV nonstructural protein 4 (nsP4) suppress the PERK pathway during infections [76, 84, 85].

2.5.2. The DNA Damage Response (DDR)

DDR, a cellular self-protective mechanism, is responsible for detecting damaged DNA. Activation of DDR causes cell cycle arrest and initiates the DNA repair system, avoiding mutated DNA duplication. DDR signaling is primarily controlled by ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), ATM and RAD3-related (ATR), and DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) [87]. The existence of a complex interrelationship between viral infection and cellular DDR revealed that some viruses can selectively activate and/or repress DDR signaling pathways in a temporally coordinated manner to promote virus replication [8791]. KSHV v-cyclin is one of the well-known viral proteins that trigger autophagy indirectly via activation of DDR. As the name implied, v-cyclin is homologous to D-type cyclins that binds to cyclin-dependent kinase 6 (CDK6) to form an active holoenzyme, allowing v-cyclin to constitutively deregulate cell cycle and to promote oncogenic stress. This stress triggers the DDR signaling, resulting in autophagy and cellular senescence [81, 86]. KSHV v-cyclin is cotranscribed with the latency-associated nuclear antigen (LANA) and vFLIP in a latent transcription unit, and it cooperates with vFLIP to precisely control the autophagy formation in KSHV-infected cells. This cooperation might contribute to the phenomenon observed in KSHV latent infection wherein the infected cells only have modest levels of autophagy and fail to senesce, as reported by Leidal et al. [92].

3. Conclusion

Due to the ability to degrade the pathogens from outer environment, autophagy is also one of the protective mechanisms against viruses that are harmful to the host. More and more studies revealed that viruses have evolved diverse mechanisms in order to evade from the defenses as autophagy. Nevertheless, previous investigations also revealed that several viruses induce autophagy to benefit themselves. The regulation of autophagy is a procedure involving a series of steps that require well-controlled signaling pathways. How the viruses operate in this process in order to complete their productive infection in host cells remain to be addressed. Understanding of the roles of autophagy and autophagy-related regulation in virus life cycle can raise the possibility in developing more specific antiviral treatments. And even more, the new findings might further support the therapies for other autophagy-related diseases, such as neurodegenerative disorders and cancer.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contribution

Ching-Yuan Cheng and Pei-I Chi contributed equally in this work.


The project was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan (NSC 102-2321-B-005-012) and the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, under the ATU plan.


  1. B. Ravikumar, M. Futter, L. Jahreiss et al., “Mammalian macroautophagy at a glance,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 122, no. 11, pp. 1707–1711, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. M. N. Moore, “Autophagy as a second level protective process in conferring resistance to environmentally-induced oxidative stress,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 254–256, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  3. B. Levine and G. Kroemer, “Autophagy in the Pathogenesis of Disease,” Cell, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 27–42, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. B. Levine and V. Deretic, “Unveiling the roles of autophagy in innate and adaptive immunity,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 767–777, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. K. Kirkegaard, M. P. Taylor, and W. T. Jackson, “Cellular autophagy: surrender, avoidance and subversion by microorganisms,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 301–314, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. S. B. Kudchodkar and B. Levine, “Viruses and autophagy,” Reviews in Medical Virology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 359–378, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Y. Kabeya, Y. Kamada, M. Baba, H. Takikawa, M. Sasaki, and Y. Ohsumi, “Atg17 functions in cooperation with Atg1 and Atg13 in yeast autophagy,” Molecular Biology of the Cell, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2544–2553, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. T. Yorimitsu and D. J. Klionsky, “Autophagy: molecular machinery for self-eating,” Cell Death and Differentiation, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1542–1552, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. S. Pattingre, A. Tassa, X. Qu et al., “Bcl-2 antiapoptotic proteins inhibit Beclin 1-dependent autophagy,” Cell, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 927–939, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. Romanov, M. Walczak, I. Ibiricu et al., “Mechanism and functions of membrane binding by the Atg5-Atg12/Atg16 complex during autophagosome formation,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 31, no. 22, pp. 4304–4317, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  11. T. Kirisako, Y. Ichimura, H. Okada et al., “The reversible modification regulates the membrane-binding state of Apg8/Aut7 essential for autophagy and the cytoplasm to vacuole targeting pathway,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 263–275, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. Z. Yang and D. J. Klionsky, “An overview of the molecular mechanism of autophagy,” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 335, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. Jäger, C. Bucci, I. Tanida et al., “Role for Rab7 in maturation of late autophagic vacuoles,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 117, no. 20, pp. 4837–4848, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. Shelly, N. Lukinova, S. Bambina, A. Berman, and S. Cherry, “Autophagy is an essential component of Drosophila immunity against vesicular stomatitis virus,” Immunity, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 588–598, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. X. H. Liang, L. K. Kleeman, H. H. Jiang et al., “Protection against fatal sindbis virus encephalitis by Beclin, a novel Bcl-2-interacting protein,” Journal of Virology, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 8586–8596, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  16. A. Orvedahl, D. Alexander, Z. Tallóczy et al., “HSV-1 ICP34.5 confers neurovirulence by targeting the Beclin 1 autophagy protein,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–35, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Chaumorcel, S. Souquère, G. Pierron, P. Codogno, and A. Esclatine, “Human cytomegalovirus controls a new autophagy-dependent cellular antiviral defense mechanism,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 46–53, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  18. G. B. Kyei, C. Dinkins, A. S. Davis et al., “Autophagy pathway intersects with HIV-1 biosynthesis and regulates viral yields in macrophages,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 255–268, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Alirezaei, W. B. Kiosses, C. T. Flynn, N. R. Brady, and H. S. Fox, “Disruption of neuronal autophagy by infected microglia results in neurodegeneration,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 8, Article ID e2906, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. D. Y. Lee and B. Sugden, “The latent membrane protein 1 oncogene modifies B-cell physiology by regulating autophagy,” Oncogene, vol. 27, no. 20, pp. 2833–2842, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M.-N. Takahashi, W. Jackson, D. T. Laird et al., “Varicella-zoster virus infection induces autophagy in both cultured cells and human skin vesicles,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 5466–5476, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. I. Chi, W. R. Huang, I. H. Lai, C. Y. Cheng, and H. J. Liu, “The p17 nonstructural protein of avian reovirus triggers autophagy enhancing virus replication via activation of phosphatase and tensin deleted on chromosome 10 (PTEN) and AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), as well as dsRNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR)/eIF2alpha signaling pathways,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 288, no. 5, pp. 3571–3584, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  23. Y.-R. Lee, H.-Y. Lei, M.-T. Liu et al., “Autophagic machinery activated by dengue virus enhances virus replication,” Virology, vol. 374, no. 2, pp. 240–248, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. Ait-Goughoulte, T. Kanda, K. Meyer, J. S. Ryerse, R. B. Ray, and R. Ray, “Hepatitis C virus genotype 1a growth and induction of autophagy,” Journal of Virology, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 2241–2249, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  25. Z. Zhou, X. Jiang, D. Liu et al., “Autophagy is involved in influenza A virus replication,” Autophagy, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 321–328, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. J. Wong, J. Zhang, X. Si et al., “Autophagosome supports coxsackievirus B3 replication in host cells,” Journal of Virology, vol. 82, no. 18, pp. 9143–9153, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. D. Zhou and S. A. Spector, “Human immunodeficiency virus type-1 infection inhibits autophagy,” AIDS, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 695–699, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. A. L. Brass, D. M. Dykxhoorn, Y. Benita et al., “Identification of host proteins required for HIV infection through a functional genomic screen,” Science, vol. 319, no. 5865, pp. 921–926, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. Chiramel, N. Brady, and R. Bartenschlager, “Divergent roles of autophagy in virus infection,” Cells, vol. 2, pp. 83–104, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  30. A. Khakpoor, M. Panyasrivanit, N. Wikan, and D. R. Smith, “A role for autophagolysosomes in dengue virus 3 production in HepG2 cells,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1093–1103, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. D. E. Alexander and D. A. Leib, “Xenophagy in herpes simplex virus replication and pathogenesis,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 101–103, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  32. J. Chou and B. Roizman, “The herpes simplex virus 1 gene for ICP34.5, which maps in inverted repeats, is conserved in several limited-passage isolates but not in strain 17syn+,” Journal of Virology, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1014–1020, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  33. B. He, M. Gross, and B. Roizman, “The γ134.5 protein of herpes simplex virus 1 complexes with protein phosphatase 1α to dephosphorylate the α subunit of the eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 and preclude the shutoff of protein synthesis by double-stranded RNA-activated protein kinase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 843–848, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. N. Mizushima, “Autophagy: process and function,” Genes and Development, vol. 21, no. 22, pp. 2861–2873, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. S. Sinha, C. L. Colbert, N. Becker, Y. Wei, and B. Levine, “Molecular basis of the regulation of Beclin 1-dependent autophagy by the γ-herpesvirus 68 Bcl-2 homolog M11,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 989–997, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  36. M. Chaumorcel, M. Lussignol, L. Mouna et al., “The human cytomegalovirus protein TRS1 inhibits autophagy via its interaction with Beclin 1,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 2571–2584, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. Neuveut, Y. Wei, and M. A. Buendia, “Mechanisms of HBV-related hepatocarcinogenesis,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 594–604, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. D. Sir, Y. Tian, W.-L. Chen, D. K. Ann, T.-S. B. Yen, and J.-H. J. Ou, “The early autophagic pathway is activated by hepatitis B virus and required for viral DNA replication,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 4383–4388, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. S. R. Kimball, “Eukaryotic initiation factor eIF2,” International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. J. Chou and B. Roizman, “Herpes simplex virus 1 γ134.5 gene function, which blocks the host response to infection, maps in the homologous domain of the genes expressed during growth arrest and DNA damage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 5247–5251, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. M. C. Hollander, Q. Zhan, I. Bae, and A. J. Fornace Jr., “Mammalian GADD34, an apoptosis- and DNA damage-inducible gene,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 272, no. 21, pp. 13731–13737, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. Q. Zhan, K. A. Lord, I. Alamo Jr. et al., “The gadd and MyD genes define a novel set of mammalian genes encoding acidic proteins that synergistically suppress cell growth,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 2361–2371, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  43. Y. Li, C. Zhang, X. Chen et al., “ICP34.5 protein of herpes simplex virus facilitates the initiation of protein translation by bridging eukaryotic initiation factor 2α (eIF2α) and protein phosphatase 1,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 28, pp. 24785–24792, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. N. Van Opdenbosch, C. Van den Broeke, N. De Regge, E. Tabarés, and H. W. Favoreel, “The IE180 protein of pseudorabies virus suppresses phosphorylation of translation initiation factor eIF2a,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 13, pp. 7235–7240, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  45. F. Zhang, A. Moon, K. Childs, S. Goodbourn, and L. K. Dixon, “The African swine fever virus DP71L protein recruits the protein phosphatase 1 catalytic subunit to dephosphorylate eIF2α and inhibits CHOP induction but is dispensable for these activities during virus infection,” Journal of Virology, vol. 84, no. 20, pp. 10681–10689, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. M. Mulvey, V. Camarena, and I. Mohr, “Full resistance of herpes simplex virus type 1-infected primary human cells to alpha interferon requires both the Us11 and γ134.5 gene products,” Journal of Virology, vol. 78, no. 18, pp. 10193–10196, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. M. Mulvey, J. Poppers, D. Sternberg, and I. Mohr, “Regulation of eIF2α phosphorylation by different functions that act during discrete phases in the herpes simplex virus type 1 life cycle,” Journal of Virology, vol. 77, no. 20, pp. 10917–10928, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. K. A. Cassady and M. Gross, “The herpes simplex virus type 1 Us11 protein interacts with protein kinase R in infected cells and requires a 30-amino-acid sequence adjacent to a kinase substrate domain,” Journal of Virology, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 2029–2035, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. M. Lussignol, C. Queval, M. F. Bernet-Camard et al., “The herpes simplex virus 1 Us11 protein inhibits autophagy through its interaction with the protein kinase PKR,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 859–871, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  50. R. J. Roller, L. L. Monk, D. Stuart, and B. Roizman, “Structure and function in the herpes simplex virus 1 RNA-binding protein Us11: mapping of the domain required for ribosomal and nucleolar association and RNA binding in vitro,” Journal of Virology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 2842–2851, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  51. J. Xing, S. Wang, R. Lin, K. L. Mossman, and C. Zheng, “Herpes simplex virus 1 tegument protein US11 downmodulates the RLR signaling pathway via direct interaction with RIG-I and MDA-5,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 3528–3540, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  52. C. Kew, P. Y. Lui, C. P. Chan et al., “Suppression of PACT-induced type I interferon production by herpes simplex virus type 1 Us11 protein,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 24, pp. 13141–13149, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  53. M. Budt, L. Niederstadt, R. S. Valchanova, S. Jonjić, and W. Brune, “Specific inhibition of the PKR-mediated antiviral response by the murine cytomegalovirus proteins m142 and m143,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 1260–1270, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. J. Child and A. P. Geballe, “Binding and relocalization of protein kinase R by murine cytomegalovirus,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 1790–1799, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. W. R. Huang, Y. C. Wang, P. I. Chi et al., “Cell entry of avian reovirus follows a caveolin-1-mediated and dynamin-2-dependent endocytic pathway that requires activation of p38 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) and Src signaling pathways as well as microtubules and small GTPase Rab5 protein,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 286, no. 35, pp. 30780–30794, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. H. J. Zweerink and W. K. Joklik, “Studies on the intracellular synthesis of reovirus-specified proteins,” Virology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 501–518, 1970. View at: Google Scholar
  57. G. Bodelón, L. Labrada, J. Martínez-Costas, and J. Benavente, “The avian reovirus genome segment S1 is a functionally tricistronic gene that expresses One structural and two nonstructural proteins in infected cells,” Virology, vol. 290, no. 2, pp. 181–191, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. C. Costas, J. Martínez-Costas, G. Bodelón, and J. Benavente, “The second open reading frame of the avian reovirus S1 gene encodes a transcription-dependent and CRM1-independent nucleocytoplasmic shuttling protein,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 2141–2150, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. H.-J. Liu, P.-Y. Lin, J.-W. Lee, H.-Y. Hsu, and W.-L. Shih, “Retardation of cell growth by avian reovirus p17 through the activation of p53 pathway,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 336, no. 2, pp. 709–715, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. J.-S. Lee, Q. Li, J.-Y. Lee et al., “FLIP-mediated autophagy regulation in cell death control,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1355–1362, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. J. Gong, S. A. Kumar, G. Graham, and A. P. Kumar, “FLIP: molecular switch between apoptosis and necroptosis,” Molecular Carcinogenesis, vol. 26, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. S. Shirley and O. Micheau, “Targeting c-FLIP in cancer,” Cancer Letters, vol. 332, no. 2, pp. 141–150, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. K. Ritthipichai, Y. Nan, I. Bossis, and Y. Zhang, “Viral FLICE inhibitory protein of rhesus monkey rhadinovirus inhibits apoptosis by enhancing autophagosome formation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 6, Article ID e39438, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  64. P. Krejbich-Trotot, B. Gay, G. Li-Pat-Yuen et al., “Chikungunya triggers an autophagic process which promotes viral replication,” Virology Journal, vol. 8, article 432, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. M. Bouraï, M. Lucas-Hourani, H. H. Gad et al., “Mapping of chikungunya virus interactions with host proteins identified nsp2 as a highly connected viral component,” Journal of Virology, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 3121–3134, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. D. Judith, S. Mostowy, M. Bourai et al., “Species-specific impact of the autophagy machinery on Chikungunya virus infection,” The EMBO Reports, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 534–544, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  67. O. P. Zhirnov and H. D. Klenk, “Influenza A virus proteins NS1 and hemagglutinin along with M2 are involved in stimulation of autophagy in infected cells,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 24, pp. 13107–13114, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  68. M. Gannagé, D. Dormann, R. Albrecht et al., “Matrix Protein 2 of Influenza A Virus Blocks Autophagosome Fusion with Lysosomes,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 367–380, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. K. Matsunaga, T. Saitoh, K. Tabata et al., “Two Beclin 1-binding proteins, Atg14L and Rubicon, reciprocally regulate autophagy at different stages,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 385–396, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. Z. Berkova, S. E. Crawford, G. Trugnan, T. Yoshimori, A. P. Morris, and M. K. Estes, “Rotavirus NSP4 induces a novel vesicular compartment regulated by calcium and associated with viroplasms,” Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 12, pp. 6061–6071, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. S. E. Crawford and M. K. Estes, “Viroporin-mediated calcium-activated autophagy,” Autophagy, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 797–798, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  72. Y. Ghiglione and G. Turk, “Nef performance in macrophages: the master orchestrator of viral persistence and spread,” Current HIV Research, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 505–513, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. S.-I. Yang, R. L. Lickteig, R. Estes, K. Rundell, G. Walter, and M. C. Mumby, “Control of protein phosphatase 2A by simian virus 40 small-t antigen,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1988–1995, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  74. S. H. Kumar and A. Rangarajan, “Simian virus 40 small T antigen activates AMPK and triggers autophagy to protect cancer cells from nutrient deprivation,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 17, pp. 8565–8574, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. M. M. Mihaylova and R. J. Shaw, “The AMPK signalling pathway coordinates cell growth, autophagy and metabolism,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1016–1023, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. Y. L. Dong, J. Lee, and B. Sugden, “The unfolded protein response and autophagy: herpesviruses rule!,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 1168–1172, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. C.-P. Chan, K.-L. Siu, K.-T. Chin, K.-Y. Yuen, B. Zheng, and D.-Y. Jin, “Modulation of the unfolded protein response by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike protein,” Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 18, pp. 9279–9287, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. D. Y. Jin and B. J. Zheng, “Roles of spike protein in the pathogenesis of SARS coronavirus,” Hong Kong Medical Journal, vol. 15, pp. 37–40, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  79. M. L. DeDiego, J. L. Nieto-Torres, J. M. Jiménez-Guardeño et al., “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus envelope protein regulates cell stress response and apoptosis,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 7, no. 10, Article ID e1002315, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. B. Xuan, Z. Qian, E. Torigoi, and D. Yu, “Human cytomegalovirus protein pUL38 induces ATF4 expression, inhibits persistent JNK phosphorylation, and suppresses endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced cell death,” Journal of Virology, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 3463–3474, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. L. M. Silva and J. U. Jung, “Modulation of the autophagy pathway by human tumor viruses,” Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 323–328, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  82. Y. L. Dong and B. Sugden, “The LMP1 oncogene of EBV activates PERK and the unfolded protein response to drive its own synthesis,” Blood, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 2280–2289, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. R. L. Ambrose and J. M. Mackenzie, “ATF6 signaling is required for efficient West Nile virus replication by promoting cell survival and inhibition of innate immune responses,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 2206–2214, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  84. P. A. Egan, M. Sobkowiak, and S. W. Chan, “Hepatitis C virus envelope protein E1 binds PERK and represses the unfolded protein response,” The Open Virology Journal, vol. 7, pp. 37–40, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  85. A. P. Rathore, M. L. Ng, and S. G. Vasudevan, “Differential unfolded protein response during Chikungunya and Sindbis virus infection: CHIKV nsP4 suppresses eIF2alpha phosphorylation,” Virology Journal, vol. 10, no. 36, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  86. S. Koopal, J. H. Furuhjelm, A. Järviluoma et al., “Viral oncogene-induced DNA damage response is activated in Kaposi sarcoma tumorigenesis,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 1348–1360, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. A. S. Turnell and R. J. Grand, “DNA viruses and the cellular DNA-damage response,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 93, pp. 2076–2097, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  88. P. A. Nikitin and M. A. Luftig, “The DNA damage response in viral-induced cellular transformation,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 429–435, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. L. Vassena, E. Giuliani, G. Matusali, E. Cohen, and M. Doria, “The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Vpr protein upregulates PVR via activation of the ATR-mediated DNA damage response pathway,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 94, pp. 2664–2669, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  90. H. Costa, R. Nascimento, J. Sinclair, and R. M. Parkhouse, “Human cytomegalovirus gene UL76 induces IL-8 expression through activation of the DNA damage response,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 9, no. 9, Article ID e1003609, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  91. C. Bittar, S. Shrivastava, J. Bhanja Chowdhury, P. Rahal, and R. B. Ray, “Hepatitis C virus NS2 protein inhibits DNA damage pathway by sequestering p53 to the cytoplasm,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 4, Article ID e62581, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  92. A. M. Leidal, D. P. Cyr, R. J. Hill, P. W. K. Lee, and C. McCormick, “Subversion of autophagy by Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus impairs oncogene-induced senescence,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 167–180, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Ching-Yuan Cheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.