Journal of Immunology Research

Journal of Immunology Research / 2015 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 546063 | 9 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/546063

Interference with the Autophagic Process as a Viral Strategy to Escape from the Immune Control: Lesson from Gamma Herpesviruses

Academic Editor: Eyad Elkord
Received27 Feb 2015
Revised13 Apr 2015
Accepted28 Apr 2015
Published18 May 2015

Abstract

We summarized the most recent findings on the role of autophagy in antiviral immune response. We described how viruses have developed strategies to subvert the autophagic process. A particular attention has been given to Epstein-Barr and Kaposi’s sarcoma associated Herpesvirus, viruses studied for many years in our laboratory. These two viruses belong to γ-Herpesvirus subfamily and are associated with several human cancers. Besides the effects on the immune response, we have described how autophagy subversion by viruses may also concur to the enhancement of their replication and to viral tumorigenesis.

1. Autophagy and the Immune Response

According to the paradigm of antigen processing by the antigen presenting cells (APC), peptides arising from intracellular proteins are presented via class I MHC molecule. This occurs after they are degraded via proteasome and transported by transporters associated with antigen processing (TAPs). Differently, peptides that originate from extracellular antigens are delivered to the late endosomal/lysosomal compartment, where they are degraded by the lysosomal proteases and then presented in association with class II MHC. In the lysosomes, the invariant chain, which blocks class II MHC, is also degraded, rendering the MHC molecules available for peptide loading. Besides the differences in the sites of origin and processing, peptides presented via class I or II MHC activate different populations of T lymphocytes, which are CD8+ or CD4+, respectively [1]. However, exceptions to this model have been described and, for example, dendritic cells (DCs), the most powerful APC [2], are able to present extracellular antigens also via class I MHC. This event, known as cross-presentation, allows DCs to activate both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, in response to an extracellular antigen [3]. On the other hand, antigens of intracellular origin can be presented also in class II MHC, after being delivered to the lysosomes, through double membrane vesicles, called autophagosomes [4]. Autophagosomes are formed during the induction of autophagy, a self-eating mechanism through which cells recycle their own constituents and survive in stressful conditions. This represents one of the mechanisms through which autophagy may promote the immune response. The autophagic process is regulated by AuTophaGy-related (ATG) genes [5]. Some of them, such as Atg1, Atg11, and Atg13, regulate autophagosome formation; others (e.g., Atg2, Atg9, and Atg18) are required for membrane flow to the expanding phagophore. The vesicle nucleation is instead dependent on the class-III phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PtdIns3K) complex formed by Vps34, Vps15, Vps30/Atg6, and Atg14. Atg6, also named Beclin 1, represents a protein with a pivotal role in the autophagy induction [6] and the microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3), or Atg8, is a marker of the autophagic vacuoles [7]. LC3 is expressed as full-length cytosolic protein and upon autophagy induction is cleaved by Atg4 to form LC3I, which is then conjugated to phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), generating LC3II. This molecule, whose formation indicates autophagy induction, is associated with the internal and external membrane of autophagosome and, by interacting with adaptor molecules, such as p62/SQSTM1, promotes uptake and degradation of both cargo and adaptors into the lysosomes [8]. Indeed, autophagosomes fuse with lysosomes transporting intracellular proteins in the last autophagic steps. Among them, also viral antigens can end up in the lysosomes, in virally infected cells. Here peptides derived from their degradation may be complexed and presented in association with class II MHC molecules. Another important role of autophagosomes is to transport entire viral particles to the endosomal/lysosomal compartment, to be degraded and eventually eliminated, a process known as xenophagy [9]. After entering the cells, pathogens can be directly delivered to the lysosomes through phagosomes. Alternatively, phagosomes as well as free viral particles can be engulfed by the double membrane vesicles of autophagosomes, before reaching the lysosomes. The latter process is under the control of the ATG genes, even if it represents a particular form of autophagy aimed at the antimicrobial defense [10]. In addition, autophagy facilitates the pathogen engagement of intracellular TLRs and the consequent release of cytokines, such as type I IFN [11]. The binding of TLRs as well as other molecules involved in the immune response, for example, CD46, by ligands or pathogens that use them as receptors, also triggers autophagy. This has been reported for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) that binds TLRs [12] and for measles virus that uses CD46 as receptor [13]. Autophagy has been also shown to contribute to measles virus infectivity [14]. Intriguingly, since CD46 represents the cellular receptor also for human Herpes-virus 6 (HHV6) [15], it would be interesting to investigate the impact on autophagy of CD46 engagement by HHV6. As if the role of autophagy in the immune response was not enough important, it has been recently reported that autophagy is induced by GM-CSF in monocytes and that it stimulates monocyte differentiation into functional macrophages and DCs. Besides that, autophagy also plays an essential role in preventing apoptosis of these cells [16].

2. Autophagy Manipulation by Viruses

Among the strategies that allow viruses to escape from the immune control, the impairment of monocyte differentiation into functional DCs represents a common one [1719]. Based on the recent finding, suggesting that autophagy is involved in monocyte differentiation in macrophages and DCs, the interference with the autophagic process could represent one of the underlying mechanisms responsible for such impairment. This strategy has been recently reported to be exploited by Human Hepatitis C virus (HCV), whose infection of human monocytes results in a reduction of lysosomal cathepsins, in an autophagic block at the late steps, and, as a consequence, in an impairment of DC differentiation [20]. HCV-mediated reduction of lysosomal acidification, as result of cathepsin release, has been reported also in other cell types [21]. However, autophagy can contribute to HCV replication since the autophagosomal membranes can be used for viral production [22]. Given the importance of autophagy in the immune response, it is not surprising that viruses have evolved strategies to interfere with it, in order to avoid their elimination into the lysosomes, impair the production of antiviral cytokines, reduce the presentation of their antigens, and, as described for HCV, alter DC differentiation. This is a must for viruses to persist in the infected host, sometimes with pathological consequences. All the steps of the autophagic process, from the autophagosome formation to the lysosomal degradation of their content [23], can be manipulated by viruses [24, 25] (Figure 1). It has been described that it depends on the virus types, on the phase of their life cycle, and on the host cell that they infect. For example, Human Immunodeficiency Virus [23], a single-stranded RNA lentivirus belonging to the Retroviridae family, is able to induce the initial phases of autophagy by Env, an envelope fusogenic protein. On the other hand, it blocks the late autophagic phases to enhance viral production by expressing Nef, an accessory protein that interferes with the autophagosomal maturation [24, 25]. During the replicative phase of their life cycle, also herpesviruses such as EBV and Kaposi’s Sarcoma Human Herpesvirus (KSHV) can promote autophagy and exploit the autophagic machinery to enhance their replication [2628]. To do so, they promote the first autophagic steps and block the last ones. This strategy allows them to avoid being delivered into the destructive environment of the lysosomes and to usurp the autophagic machinery for viral transportation through the cell cytoplasm [22, 26, 29]. Pathways involved in the autophagy induction, such as PKR/EIF2 alpha and m-Tor, can be also targeted by viruses belonging to the Herpesvirus family, for example, Herpes Simplex virus-1 (HSV-1) [3032] and cytomegalovirus (HCMV) [33]. Also Beclin 1, a key molecule involved in several steps of the autophagic process [6], can be bound and altered in its function by viral proteins such as vBcl2 of KSHV or ICP 34.5 of HSV-1 [3436]. All these strategies allow viruses to block autophagy induction during infection of the host cells. Differently, another Herpesvirus, Varicella-Zoster virus (VZV), has been recently reported to successfully infect target cells without blocking the autophagic process. Indeed ICP 34.5 or US11, the two proteins responsible for the block of autophagy by HSV1, are not present in VZV although both viruses belong to the same subfamily [37].

3. Herpesviruses

Herpesviruses are large, double strand DNA viruses having a common particle structure [38]. To date eight human Herpesviruses have been identified and classified into three subfamilies (alpha, beta, and gamma) based on their growth characteristics and tissue tropism [39]. The α-subfamily includes the neurotropic viruses Herpes Simplex viruses (HSV) 1 and 2 and Varicella-Zoster virus (VZV). Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and the human Herpesviruses 6 and 7 are members of the β-subfamily, while EBV and KSHV are members of the γ-subfamily [40]. A common feature shared by all human Herpesviruses is the viral persistence into host and the possibility to undergo two alternative life cycle programs, namely, latency and lytic replication. During latency the viral genome is retained as a circular episome in the nucleus and no viral progeny is produced. Furthermore, in the course of latent infection a limited set of genes is expressed in order to reduce immune recognition. In contrast to latency, the Herpesvirus lytic program is characterized by a regulated cascade of viral gene expression accompanied by viral production and killing of infected cells [23]. Although most Herpesviruses have been reported to interfere with the autophagic process, the next part of this review will focus on the interplay between autophagy and γ-Herpesviruses, given that our laboratory has for long time worked on the virus-host interaction of these viruses associated with several human cancers.

4. Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV)

As for other Herpesviruses, EBV infection can be latent or lytic [41, 42]. During latency the EBV genome is retained as a circular episome in the cell nuclei and upon appropriate stimuli the virus switches into the lytic replication program. It is known that EBV infects primarily human B lymphocytes and epithelial cells; however, its infection can also occur in other cells with a central role in the immune response [43], such as monocytes and DCs [44, 45]. The in vitro infection of monocytes induces apoptosis and results in an impairment of DC development [45, 46], although the underlying mechanisms have not been investigated in these studies. Therefore, the autophagic pathway could be investigated in these cells since, as previously described, a block of autophagy can switch cell differentiation into cell death in monocytes DCs [16]. These are the most powerful cells in the priming of the CD8+ T cell response, playing a pivotal role in control of the EBV infection [47]. Besides cytotoxic T cells, DCs are able to activate a CD4+ T cell-mediated immune response against the EBV antigens, such as EBNA1, through the mechanism of cross-presentation [48]. Autophagy has been shown to be essential for class II MHC presentation of EBNA1 protein. The block of autophagy resulted in an accumulation of this protein in the intracellular autophagosomes and, more importantly, in a reduction of EBNA1 recognition by EBNA1 specific CD4+ T cells [49]. The involvement of autophagy in EBNA 1 presentation was later confirmed by a more recent study [50]. Regarding the EBV interaction with plasmacytoid subpopulation of DCs (pDCs), the main type I IFN producing cells [51], it has been reported that autophagy is essential for IFN release in response to the EBV infection. Autophagy is stimulated by the virus and facilitates its interaction with TLR7 and TLR9 PPRs, both located in the endosomal/lysosomal compartment and essential for EBV recognition by these cells. However, although EBV stimulates autophagy and IFN release, its infection results in an impairment of pDC maturation [12]. Since it has been reported that EBV downregulates TLR 9 in B cells [52] and that this effect is mediated by two EBV proteins, namely, latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) [53] and BGLF5 [54], it would be interesting to investigate TLR9 expression levels in the pDCs EBV-infected versus uninfected control cells.

EBV is associated with several different human cancers of B and epithelial cell origin, such as posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and some forms of gastric carcinoma [55]. Besides its strong association with some human cancers, EBV infects and establishes a life-long asymptomatic infection in 95% of adult healthy population [56], reducing to the minimum or not expressing any protein, in order to escape from the immune recognition. Among the viral antigens, only the EBV latent nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) expression is required for the maintenance of the viral episome in the EBV infected human B cells [57] and this is the only protein always expressed in EBV-associated malignancies. This protein has been demonstrated to activate both CD4+ T cells [44], being presented via class II MHC [49] and CD8+ T cells [58], although for long time it has been considered invisible to the immune system [48]. As previously described, autophagy is essential for EBNA1 antigen presentation via class II MHC while, interestingly, it does not seem to play a role in the class II MHC presentation of two other EBV latent nuclear proteins, EBNA2 and EBNA 3C, both expressed only in pathological conditions [59]. The most oncogenic EBV latent protein, LMP1, has been reported to regulate its own expression by inducing or inhibiting autophagy. When LMP1 is highly expressed in B cells, autophagy is stimulated and promotes degradation [60]. Given that LMP1 plays an important role in EBV-induced oncogenesis, the stimulation of autophagy could be used as a strategy to reduce the expression of this protein and consequently to affect the EBV-driven tumorigenesis.

5. Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus (KSHV)

KSHV or Human Herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8) is the last human γ-Herpesvirus identified to date [61]. It shows two alternative life cycle programs, latent and lytic [6264]. Generally, latency is the KSHV default program within 48–72 h postinfection depending on target cells. In vivo, KSHV mainly infects endothelial and B cells and establishes a lifelong latency in B lymphocytes of infected individuals, escaping from the host immune response [65, 66]. Several KSHV latent and lytic proteins are involved in immune evasion, in preventing apoptosis and blocking autophagy as well as in transformation [67]. KSHV is the etiologic agent of Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) [61], a multifocal angioproliferative disorder arising from KSHV-infected endothelial cell [68], and of lymphoproliferative disorders, such as primary effusion lymphomas (PELs), a non-Hodgkin B cell lymphoma localized in body cavities [66], and the plasma cell variant of multicentric Castleman disease (MCD) [69]. It is important to underline that, although KSHV is detectable in all KS lesions, regardless of disease stage or clinical variant, the virus is necessary but not sufficient for the development of this tumor [67, 68]. Typical of KS are the spindle cells, derived from the endothelial cells. The majority of spindle cells are latently infected by KSHV and only a small percentage of these cells express viral lytic antigens [68, 70]. However, it is currently believed that lytic replication is necessary to support KS lesion formation and maintenance [68, 7174]. In addition, viral replication allows the secretion of proinflammatory and/or proangiogenic factors that create the inflammatory microenvironment essential in KS pathogenesis [68, 75]. Monocytes are among the inflammatory cells found in KS lesions and a study, based on immunohistochemical staining and in situ hybridization, reported that these cells are KSHV infected [76]. The virus has also been detected in peripheral T-cells and macrophages [77, 78].

As other Herpesviruses, KSHV has to cope with innate and adaptive immunity in order to establish a persistent infection in immunocompetent host. Latency is one of the strategies used by KSHV since viral gene expression is reduced. Conversely, during its lytic cycle, a high number of immunogenic proteins are produced [71, 79]. The relevance of the equilibrium between KSHV lytic cycle and host immunity is indicated by the increased viral replication and the development of KSHV-related malignancies in immunosuppressed patients [8082]. About 25% of KSHV proteins are involved in KSHV immune evasion mechanisms [79] and, although most of these belong to lytic cycle, both latent and lytic proteins are able to hijack innate and adaptive immune response [67]. They can indeed inhibit complement-mediated lysis of infected cells and the IFN I signaling, deregulate the inflammatory cytokine/chemokine networks, and interfere with antigen presentation [67, 79, 8385]. pDCs, monocyte-derived dendritic cells, and monocytes are among the cell types infected by KSHV [19, 86, 87]. As consequence of the infection, a reduction of costimulatory molecules as well as a deregulation of the cytokine release and an impairment of allostimulatory capacity can occur [19, 76, 8790]. In vivo, DC functional impairment has been reported in patients with classical KS [91] and a reduction of pDCs was observed in AIDS-KS in comparison to KS negative HIV-1 infected individuals [92]. Moreover, the number of Langerhans cells is also decreased in KS lesions compared to normal skin [93]. Furthermore, it has been reported that the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) activation in noninfected monocytes/macrophages leads to a block of autophagy and consequent dysfunction, due to the cytokines released during HIV infection [94]. Interestingly, STAT3 inhibitors are potent autophagy inducers [95]. In this context we showed that KHSV is able to activate STAT3 pathway in DCs by binding to its receptor on these cells, namely, the type II C-type lectin, dendritic cell-specific ICAM-3 grabbing nonintegrin (DC-SIGN; CD209) [87, 96]. Besides, we showed that STAT3 activation led to a block of the autophagic flux, as demonstrated by the reduced expression of LC3II and the increased level of p62 [96]. In addition, looking for a possible mechanism responsible for the block of autophagy mediated by STAT3 activation in DCs exposed to KSHV, we found an upregulation of Mcl-1 [96, 97]. This is one of the proteins able to bind and sequester Beclin 1, hampering its essential role in autophagosome formation. Remarkably, STAT3 inhibition by AG490 was able to prevent the effects on p62, LC3II, and Mcl-1 [96]. In agreement, a previous paper has shown that the inhibition of STAT3 by Sorafenib resulted in a downregulation of Mcl-1, disruption of Beclin 1-Mcl-1 complex, and reversion of the autophagic block in hepatocarcinoma cells [98]. Of note, the autophagic block occurred also in the presence of UV-inactivated KSHV [96], indicating that neither vBCL2 nor vFLIP expression was required [34, 96, 99, 100]. Concomitantly to the autophagic block induced by KSHV-mediated STAT3 activation, we also observed a reduction of IL12p70 release in response to LPS stimulation and a higher production of IL-10, IL-6, and IL-23 [96]. This cytokine pattern skews the Th1/Th2 profile towards Th2 [88] and/or Th17 [101], promoting immunosuppression and inflammation. Therefore, STAT3 activation could be one of the molecular mechanisms underlying KSHV-mediated immunosuppression in DCs. Indeed, STAT3 activation correlates with an immunosuppressive phenotype and DC dysfunction in the KS microenvironment [102] and in the peripheral blood of tumor bearing patients [103, 104]. Several papers have investigated the interplay between KSHV and the autophagic pathway [79]. During the latent phase of its life-cycle, KSHV expresses the FADD-like interleukin-1 beta-converting enzyme inhibitory protein (v-FLIP), a truncated homolog of the cellular FLIP, which besides having an antiapoptotic activity [105, 106] has been recently shown to block the autophagic flux. It competes with LC3 for binding to ATG3, thereby preventing LC3 binding and processing during autophagosome biogenesis [100]. Furthermore, the inhibition of vFLIP binding to ATG3 reduced the size of KSHV positive tumor in mice [100]. It has also been demonstrated that v-FLIP suppression of autophagy counteracts v-cyclin-induced cellular senescence [107, 108]. v-cyclin is a KSHV latent protein that deregulates cell cycle, causes aberrant host DNA replication, and triggers the DNA damage responses (DDRs) [109]. Besides vFLIP, two KSHV proteins expressed during the lytic cycle, vBcl2 and K7, can interfere with autophagy. vBcl2 is a homolog of cellular Bcl-2 that inhibits both apoptosis [99, 110] and autophagy [34, 35]. As its cellular counterpart, vBcl2 negatively regulates autophagy by binding Beclin 1 [34]. Always within the context of the lytic cycle, recent evidence suggests that KSHV K7 protein prevents autophagosome maturation, by interacting with Rubicon autophagic protein [111]. K7 is involved in apoptosis suppression [112, 113] while Rubicon is a subunit of the Beclin 1/UVRAG/Vps34 autophagy complex, which regulates the autophagosome maturation and the endocytic trafficking [114116]. As shown by authors, K7 transfection in epithelial cell lines promoted a greater interaction between Rubicon and Beclin 1/UVRAG/Vps34 complex resulting in a block of Vps34 enzymatic activity and, consequently, of autophagosome maturation [111]. Interestingly, during the lytic cycle KSHV exploits autophagy to enhance its reactivation mediated by Rta immediate lytic protein [28]. Altogether, the data here reviewed suggest that KSHV has evolved several strategies to circumvent autophagy-mediated immune responses, to persist in infected hosts. Moreover, the autophagic block during latency and the autophagy induction during the lytic cycle may contribute to the pathogenesis of KSHV associated malignancies.

6. Concluding Remarks

A better understanding of how autophagy manipulation could influence antiviral immune response and control virus-induced tumorigenesis might help to discover strategies improving the outcome of the treatments of virus-associated malignancies. Moreover, since autophagy is activated and is involved in EBV and KSHV replication [20, 27], its manipulation could also affect the viral particle release that plays a role in γ-Herpesvirus-associated cancers.

Disclosure

Alberto Faggioni and Mara Cirone are co-last authors.

Conflict of Interests

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

References

  1. C. Watts and S. Powis, “Pathways of antigen processing and presentation,” Reviews in Immunogenetics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 60–74, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  2. P. Guermonprez, J. Valladeau, L. Zitvogel, C. Théry, and S. Amigorena, “Antigen presentation and T cell stimulation by dendritic cells,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 20, pp. 621–667, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. R. Mantegazza, J. G. Magalhaes, S. Amigorena, and M. S. Marks, “Presentation of phagocytosed antigens by MHC Class I and II,” Traffic, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 135–152, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. C. Münz, “Antigen processing for MHC class II presentation via autophagy,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 3, article 9, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. Y. Feng, D. He, Z. Yao, and D. J. Klionsky, “The machinery of macroautophagy,” Cell Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 24–41, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. X. H. Liang, S. Jackson, M. Seaman et al., “Induction of autophagy and inhibition of tumorigenesis by beclin 1,” Nature, vol. 402, no. 6762, pp. 672–676, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Y. Kabeya, N. Mizushima, T. Ueno et al., “LC3, a mammalian homologue of yeast Apg8p, is localized in autophagosome membranes after processing,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 19, no. 21, pp. 5720–5728, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. Pankiv, T. H. Clausen, T. Lamark et al., “p62/SQSTM1 binds directly to Atg8/LC3 to facilitate degradation of ubiquitinated protein aggregates by autophagy,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 33, pp. 24131–24145, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. T. Wileman, “Autophagy as a defence against intracellular pathogens,” Essays in Biochemistry, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 153–163, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. A. Bauckman, N. Owusu-Boaitey, and I. U. Mysorekar, “Selective autophagy: xenophagy,” Methods, vol. 75, pp. 120–127, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. M. A. Delgado, R. A. Elmaoued, A. S. Davis, G. Kyei, and V. Deretic, “Toll-like receptors control autophagy,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1110–1121, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. Severa, E. Giacomini, V. Gafa et al., “EBV stimulates TLR- and autophagy-dependent pathways and impairs maturation in plasmacytoid dendritic cells: implications for viral immune escape,” European Journal of Immunology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 147–158, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. P.-E. Joubert, G. Meiffren, I. P. Grégoire et al., “Autophagy induction by the pathogen receptor CD46,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 354–366, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. Richetta, I. P. Grégoire, P. Verlhac et al., “Sustained autophagy contributes to measles virus infectivity,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 9, no. 9, Article ID e1003599, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. F. Santoro, P. E. Kennedy, G. Locatelli, M. S. Malnati, E. A. Berger, and P. Lusso, “CD46 is a cellular receptor for human herpesvirus 6,” Cell, vol. 99, no. 7, pp. 817–827, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. Y. Zhang, M. J. Morgan, K. Chen, S. Choksi, and Z.-G. Liu, “Induction of autophagy is essential for monocyte-macrophage differentiation,” Blood, vol. 119, no. 12, pp. 2895–2905, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. Alcami and U. H. Koszinowski, “Viral mechanisms of immune evasion,” Immunology Today, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 447–455, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Iannello, O. Debbeche, E. Martin, L. H. Attalah, S. Samarani, and A. Ahmad, “Viral strategies for evading antiviral cellular immune responses of the host,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 16–35, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Cirone, G. Lucania, P. Bergamo, P. Trivedi, L. Frati, and A. Faggioni, “Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) inhibits monocyte differentiation into dendritic cells and impairs their immunostimulatory activity,” Immunology Letters, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 40–46, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. Granato, V. Lacconi, M. Peddis et al., “Hepatitis C virus present in the sera of infected patients interferes with the autophagic process of monocytes impairing their in-vitro differentiation into dendritic cells,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta—Molecular Cell Research, vol. 1843, no. 7, pp. 1348–1355, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. Taguwa, H. Kambara, N. Fujita et al., “Dysfunction of autophagy participates in vacuole formation and cell death in cells replicating hepatitis C virus,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 24, pp. 13185–13194, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. D. Sir, C. F. Kuo, Y. Tian et al., “Replication of hepatitis C virus RNA on autophagosomal membranes,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 287, no. 22, pp. 18036–18043, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. D. J. Klionsky, F. C. Abdalla, H. Abeliovich et al., “Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy,” Autophagy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 445–544, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  24. S. B. Kudchodkar, Y. Yu, T. G. Maguire, and J. C. Alwine, “Human cytomegalovirus infection induces rapamycin-insensitive phosphorylation of downstream effectors of mTOR kinase,” Journal of Virology, vol. 78, no. 20, pp. 11030–11039, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. H. J. Kim, S. Lee, and J. U. Jung, “When autophagy meets viruses: a double-edged sword with functions in defense and offense,” Seminars in Immunopathology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 323–341, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M. Granato, R. Santarelli, A. Farina et al., “Epstein-barr virus blocks the autophagic flux and appropriates the autophagic machinery to enhance viral replication,” Journal of Virology, vol. 88, no. 21, pp. 12715–12726, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. C. H. Hung, L. W. Chen, W. H. Wang et al., “Regulation of autophagic activation by Rta of Epstein-Barr virus via the extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway,” Journal of Virology, vol. 88, no. 20, pp. 12133–12145, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. H.-J. Wen, Z. Yang, Y. Zhou, and C. Wood, “Enhancement of autophagy during lytic replication by the Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus replication and transcription activator,” Journal of Virology, vol. 84, no. 15, pp. 7448–7458, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. Nowag and C. Munz, “Diverting autophagic membranes for exocytosis,” Autophagy, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 425–427, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. S. J. Child, M. Hakki, K. L. De Niro, and A. P. Geballe, “Evasion of cellular antiviral responses by human cytomegalovirus TRS1 and IRS1,” Journal of Virology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 197–205, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. M. Hakki, E. E. Marshall, K. L. De Niro, and A. P. Geballe, “Binding and nuclear relocalization of protein kinase R by human cytomegalovirus TRS1,” Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 23, pp. 11817–11826, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. C. Liang, E. Xiaofei, and J. U. Jung, “Downregulation of autophagy by herpesvirus Bcl-2 homologs,” Autophagy, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 268–272, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. E. M. Buckingham, J. E. Carpenter, W. Jackson, L. Zerboni, A. M. Arvin, and C. Grose, “Autophagic flux without a block differentiates varicella-zoster virus infection from herpes simplex virus infection,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 256–261, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. F. Liu and Z. H. Zhou, “Comparative virion structures of human herpesviruses,” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis, A. Arvin, G. Campadelli-Fiume, E. Mocarski et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  39. A. J. Davison, “Overview of classification,” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis, A. Arvin, G. Campadelli-Fiume, E. Mocarski et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  40. R. Longnecker and F. Neipel, “Introduction to the human gamma-herpesviruses,” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis, A. Arvin, G. Campadelli-Fiume, E. Mocarski et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  41. T. Tsurumi, M. Fujita, and A. Kudoh, “Latent and lytic Epstein-Barr virus replication strategies,” Reviews in Medical Virology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. W. Amon and P. J. Farrell, “Reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus from latency,” Reviews in Medical Virology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 149–156, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. O. Chijioke, T. Azzi, D. Nadal, and C. Münz, “Innate immune responses against Epstein Barr virus infection,” Journal of Leukocyte Biology, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1185–1190, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. M. Savard, C. Bélanger, M. Tardif, P. Gourde, L. Flamand, and J. Gosselin, “Infection of primary human monocytes by Epstein-Barr virus,” Journal of Virology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 2612–2619, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. L. Li, D. Liu, L. Hutt-Fletcher, A. Morgan, M. G. Masucci, and V. Levitsky, “Epstein-Barr virus inhibits the development of dendritic cells by promoting apoptosis of their monocyte precursors in the presence of granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-4,” Blood, vol. 99, no. 10, pp. 3725–3734, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. A. O. Guerreiro-Cacais, L. Q. Li, D. Donati et al., “Capacity of Epstein-Barr virus to infect monocytes and inhibit their development into dendritic cells is affected by the cell type supporting virus replication,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2767–2778, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. K. Bickham, K. Goodman, C. Paludan et al., “Dendritic cells initiate immune control of epstein-barr virus transformation of B lymphocytes in vitro,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 198, no. 11, pp. 1653–1663, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. C. Münz, K. L. Bickham, M. Subklewe et al., “Human CD4+ T lymphocytes consistently respond to the latent Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen EBNA1,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 191, no. 10, pp. 1649–1660, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. C. Paludan, D. Schmid, M. Landthaler et al., “Endogenous MHC class II processing of a viral nuclear antigen after autophagy,” Science, vol. 307, no. 5709, pp. 593–596, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. C. S. Leung, T. A. Haigh, L. K. Mackay, A. B. Rickinson, and G. S. Taylor, “Nuclear location of an endogenously expressed antigen, EBNA1, restricts access to macroautophagy and the range of CD4 epitope display,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 5, pp. 2165–2170, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. B. Reizis, A. Bunin, H. S. Ghosh, K. L. Lewis, and V. Sisirak, “Plasmacytoid dendritic cells: recent progress and open questions,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 29, pp. 163–183, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. V. Younesi, H. Nikzamir, M. Yousefi et al., “Epstein Barr virus inhibits the stimulatory effect of TLR7/8 and TLR9 agonists but not CD40 ligand in human B lymphocytes,” Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 534–541, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. I. Fathallah, P. Parroche, H. Gruffat et al., “EBV latent membrane protein 1 is a negative regulator of TLR9,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 185, no. 11, pp. 6439–6447, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. van Gent, B. D. Griffin, E. G. Berkhoff et al., “EBV lytic-phase protein BGLF5 contributes to TLR9 downregulation during productive infection,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 186, no. 3, pp. 1694–1702, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. L. S. Young and A. B. Rickinson, “Epstein-Barr virus: 40 years on,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 757–768, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. L. S. Young and P. G. Murray, “Epstein-Barr virus and oncogenesis: from latent genes to tumours,” Oncogene, vol. 22, no. 33, pp. 5108–5121, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. S. Humme, G. Reisbach, R. Feederle et al., “The EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) enhances B cell immortalization several thousandfold,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 19, pp. 10989–10994, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. S. P. Lee, J. M. Brooks, H. Al-Jarrah et al., “CD8 T cell recognition of endogenously expressed Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen 1,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 199, no. 10, pp. 1409–1420, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. G. S. Taylor, H. M. Long, T. A. Haigh, M. Larsen, J. Brooks, and A. B. Rickinson, “A role for intercellular antigen transfer in the recognition of EBV-transformed B cell Lines by EBV nuclear antigen-specific CD4+ T cells,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 177, no. 6, pp. 3746–3756, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Y. Chang, E. Cesarman, M. S. Pessin et al., “Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma,” Science, vol. 266, no. 5192, pp. 1865–1869, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. R. Sun, S.-F. Lin, K. Staskus et al., “Kinetics of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus gene expression,” Journal of Virology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 2232–2242, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  63. F. X. Zhu, T. Cusano, and Y. Yuan, “Identification of the immediate-early transcripts of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus,” Journal of Virology, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 5556–5567, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  64. K. W. Wen and B. Damania, “Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV): molecular biology and oncogenesis,” Cancer Letters, vol. 289, no. 2, pp. 140–150, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. J. A. Ambroziak, D. J. Blackbourn, B. G. Herndier et al., “Herpes-like sequences in HIV-infected and uninfected Kaposi's sarcoma patients,” Science, vol. 268, no. 5210, pp. 582–583, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. E. Cesarman, Y. Chang, P. S. Moore, J. W. Said, and D. M. Knowles, “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-related body-cavity-based lymphomas,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 332, no. 18, pp. 1186–1191, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. P. S. Moore and Y. Chang, “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus immunoevasion and tumorigenesis: two sides of the same coin?” Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 57, pp. 609–639, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. D. Ganem, “KSHV and the pathogenesis of Kaposi sarcoma: listening to human biology and medicine,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 939–949, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. A. Carbone and A. Gloghini, “KSHV/HHV8-associated lymphomas,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. N. Dupin, C. Fisher, P. Kellam et al., “Distribution of human herpesvirus-8 latently infected cells in Kaposi's sarcoma, multicentric Castleman's disease, and primary effusion lymphoma,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 4546–4551, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. S. A. R. Rezaee, C. Cunningham, A. J. Davison, and D. J. Blackbourn, “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus immune modulation: an overview,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 1781–1804, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. D. Whitby, M. R. Howard, M. Tenant-Flowers et al., “Detection of Kaposi sarcoma associated herpesvirus in peripheral blood of HIV-infected individuals and progression to Kaposi's sarcoma,” The Lancet, vol. 346, no. 8978, pp. 799–802, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. E. B. Quinlivan, C. Zhang, P. W. Stewart, C. Komoltri, M. G. Davis, and R. S. Wehbie, “Elevated virus loads of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated human herpesvirus 8 predict Kaposi's sarcoma disease progression, but elevated levels of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 do not,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 185, no. 12, pp. 1736–1744, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. E. A. Engels, R. J. Biggar, V. A. Marshall et al., “Detection and quantification of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus to predict AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma,” AIDS, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1847–1851, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. D. M. Lukac and Y. Yuan, “Reactivation and lytic replication of KSHV,” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis, A. Arvin, G. Campadelli-Fiume, E. Mocarski et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  76. C. Blasig, C. Zietz, B. Haar et al., “Monocytes in Kaposi's sarcoma lesions are productively infected by human herpesvirus 8,” Journal of Virology, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 7963–7968, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  77. W. J. Harrington Jr., O. Bagasra, C. E. Sosa et al., “Human herpesvirus type 8 DNA sequences in cell-free plasma and mononuclear cells of Kaposi's sarcoma patients,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 174, no. 5, pp. 1101–1105, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. M. C. Sirianni, L. Vincenzi, V. Fiorelli et al., “Gamma-interferon production in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes from Kaposi's sarcoma patients: correlation with the presence of human herpesvirus-8 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and lesional macrophages,” Blood, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 968–976, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  79. H. R. Lee, S. Lee, P. M. Chaudhary, P. Gill, and J. U. Jung, “Immune evasion by Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus,” Future Microbiology, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1349–1365, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. C. Boshoff and R. Weiss, “AIDS-related malignancies,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 373–382, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. D. Ganem, “KSHV-induced oncogenesis,” in Human Herpesviruses: Biology, Therapy, and Immunoprophylaxis, A. Arvin, G. Campadelli-Fiume, E. Mocarski et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  82. C. Liang, J.-S. Lee, and J. U. Jung, “Immune evasion in Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus associated oncogenesis,” Seminars in Cancer Biology, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 423–436, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. K. Brulois and J. U. Jung, “Interplay between Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus and the innate immune system,” Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 597–609, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. M. S. Lee, T. Jones, D. Y. Song et al., “Exploitation of the complement system by oncogenic Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus for cell survival and persistent infection,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 10, no. 9, Article ID e1004412, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. Z. Hu and E. J. Usherwood, “Immune escape of γ-herpesviruses from adaptive immunity,” Reviews in Medical Virology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 365–378, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. J. A. West, S. M. Gregory, V. Sivaraman, L. Su, and B. Damania, “Activation of Plasmacytoid dendritic cells by Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus,” Journal of Virology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 895–904, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. G. Rappocciolo, F. J. Jenkins, H. R. Hensler et al., “DC-SIGN is a receptor for human herpesvirus 8 on dendritic cells and macrophages,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 1741–1749, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. H. R. Hensler, G. Rappocciolo, C. R. Rinaldo, and F. J. Jenkins, “Cytokine production by human herpesvirus 8-infected dendritic cells,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 79–83, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. M. Cirone, V. Conte, A. Farina et al., “HHV-8 reduces dendritic cell migration through down-regulation of cell-surface CCR6 and CCR7 and cytoskeleton reorganization,” Virology Journal, vol. 9, article 92, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. D. M. Campbell, G. Rappocciolo, F. J. Jenkins, and C. R. Rinaldo, “Dendritic cells: key players in human herpesvirus 8 infection and pathogenesis,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 5, article 452, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. S. Della Bella, S. Nicola, L. Brambilla et al., “Quantitative and functional defects of dendritic cells in classic Kaposi's sarcoma,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 317–329, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. J. Stebbing, B. Gazzard, S. Portsmouth et al., “Disease-associated dendritic cells respond to disease-specific antigens through the common heat shock protein receptor,” Blood, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 1806–1814, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. F. Valcuende-Cavero, M. I. Febrer-Bosch, and A. Castells-Rodellas, “Langerhans' cells and lymphocytic infiltrate in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma. An immunohistochemical study,” Acta Dermato-Venereologica, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 183–187, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  94. J. van Grol, C. Subauste, R. M. Andrade, K. Fujinaga, J. Nelson, and C. S. Subauste, “HIV-1 inhibits autophagy in bystander macrophage/monocytic cells through Src-Akt and STAT3,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 7, Article ID e11733, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. S. Shen, M. Niso-Santano, S. Adjemian et al., “Cytoplasmic STAT3 represses autophagy by inhibiting PKR activity,” Molecular Cell, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 667–680, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. R. Santarelli, R. Gonnella, G. di Giovenale et al., “STAT3 activation by KSHV correlates with IL-10, IL-6 and IL-23 release and an autophagic block in dendritic cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, article 4241, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. L. W. Thomas, C. Lam, and S. W. Edwards, “Mcl-1; the molecular regulation of protein function,” FEBS Letters, vol. 584, no. 14, pp. 2981–2989, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. W. T. Tai, C. W. Shiau, H. L. Chen et al., “Mcl-1-dependent activation of Beclin 1 mediates autophagic cell death induced by sorafenib and SC-59 in hepatocellular carcinoma cells,” Cell Death and Disease, vol. 4, no. 2, article e485, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. E. H.-Y. Cheng, J. Nicholas, D. S. Bellows et al., “A Bcl-2 homolog encoded by Kaposi sarcoma-associated virus, human herpesvirus 8, inhibits apoptosis but does not heterodimerize with Bax or Bak,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 690–694, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. 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
  101. S. Q. Crome, A. Y. Wang, and M. K. Levings, “Translational mini-review series on Th17 cells: function and regulation of human T helper 17 cells in health and disease,” Clinical & Experimental Immunology, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 109–119, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. Y. Nefedova, M. Huang, S. Kusmartsev et al., “Hyperactivation of STAT3 is involved in abnormal differentiation of dendritic cells in cancer,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 464–474, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. U. Bharadwaj, M. Li, R. Zhang, C. Chen, and Q. Yao, “Elevated interleukin-6 and G-CSF in human pancreatic cancer cell conditioned medium suppress dendritic cell differentiation and activation,” Cancer Research, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 5479–5488, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. M. Kortylewski, H. Xin, M. Kujawski et al., “Regulation of the IL-23 and IL-12 balance by Stat3 signaling in the tumor microenvironment,” Cancer Cell, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 114–123, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. M. Djerbi, V. Screpanti, A. I. Catrina, B. Bogen, P. Biberfeld, and A. Grandien, “The inhibitor of death receptor signaling, FLICE-inhibitory protein defines a new class of tumor progression factors,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 190, no. 7, pp. 1025–1031, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. I. Guasparri, S. A. Keller, and E. Cesarman, “KSHV vFLIP is essential for the survival of infected lymphoma cells,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 199, no. 7, pp. 993–1003, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. 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
  108. C. Liang, “Viral FLIPping autophagy for longevity,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 101–103, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. 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
  110. R. Sarid, T. Sato, R. A. Bohenzky, J. J. Russo, and Y. Chang, “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus encodes a functional Bcl-2 homologue,” Nature Medicine, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 293–298, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. Q. Liang, B. Chang, K. F. Brulois et al., “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus K7 modulates rubicon-mediated inhibition of autophagosome maturation,” Journal of Virology, vol. 87, no. 22, pp. 12499–12503, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. H.-W. Wang, T. V. Sharp, A. Koumi, G. Koentges, and C. Boshoff, “Characterization of an anti-apoptotic glycoprotein encoded by Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus which resembles a spliced variant of human survivin,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2602–2615, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. P. Feng, J. Park, B.-S. Lee, S.-H. Lee, R. J. Bram, and J. U. Jung, “Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus mitochondrial K7 protein targets a cellular calcium-modulating cyclophilin ligand to modulate intracellular calcium concentration and inhibit apoptosis,” Journal of Virology, vol. 76, no. 22, pp. 11491–11504, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. M. Mehrpour, A. Esclatine, I. Beau, and P. Codogno, “Overview of macroautophagy regulation in mammalian cells,” Cell Research, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 748–762, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. 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
  116. Y. Zhong, Q. J. Wang, X. Li et al., “Distinct regulation of autophagic activity by Atg14L and Rubicon associated with Beclin 1-phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase complex,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 468–476, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Roberta Santarelli 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.

905 Views | 351 Downloads | 13 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder