The family of interferon (IFN) regulatory factors (IRFs) encodes DNA-binding transcription factors, some of which function as modulators of virus-induced signaling. The IRF-3 gene is constitutively expressed in many tissues and cell types, and neither virus infection nor IFN treatment enhances its transcription. In infected cells, however, IRF-3 protein is phosphorylated at the carboxyl terminus, which facilitates its binding to the CBP/p300 coactivator. In the present study, we demonstrate that overexpression of IRF-3 significantly enhances virus-mediated transcription of the IFNA and IFNB genes in infected cells as well as IFN synthesis. IRF-3-mediated activation of IFN genes depends in part on carboxyl-terminal phosphorylation of a cluster of Ser/Thr residues, because a mutant with Ser/Thr to Ala substitutions activates the IFN promoter less efficiently. However, overexpression of IRF-3 in human 2FTGH cells alone results in the induction of an antiviral state, which depends on functional IFN signaling, because IRF-3 does not induce an antiviral state in mutant 2FTGH cells defective in either JAK-1 or p48 functions; also no antiviral effect of IRF-3 could be demonstrated in Vero cells that lack the IFNA and IFNB genes. This finding indicates that the observed antiviral activity of IRF-3 in 2FTGH cells results mainly from the induction of IFNs. Furthermore, E1A protein inhibited IRF-3-mediated stimulation of the IFNA4 promoter in transient expression assays; this inhibition could be reversed partially by overexpression of CBP/p300 and was not demonstrated with the mutant of E1A that does not bind p300. These results identify IRF-3 and CBP/p300 as integral components of the virus-induced complex that stimulates type 1 IFN gene transcription. The observation that adenovirus E1A antagonizes IRF-3 mediated activation suggests that E1A and IRF-3 may compete for binding to CBP/p300 and implicates a novel mechanism by which adenovirus may overcome the antiviral effects of the IFN pathway.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juang et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: