research communications
Structural and biophysical characterization of the Borna disease virus 1 phosphoprotein
aDivision of Structural Biology, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, and bSir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
*Correspondence e-mail: jeremy@strubi.ox.ac.uk
Bornaviruses are RNA viruses with a mammalian, reptilian, and avian host range. The viruses infect neuronal cells and in rare cases cause a lethal encephalitis. The family Bornaviridae are part of the Mononegavirales order of viruses, which contain a nonsegmented viral genome. Mononegavirales encode a viral phosphoprotein (P) that binds both the viral polymerase (L) and the viral nucleoprotein (N). The P protein acts as a molecular chaperone and is required for the formation of a functional replication/transcription complex. In this study, the structure of the domain of the phosphoprotein determined by X-ray crystallography is reported. The structural results are complemented with biophysical characterization using and small-angle X-ray scattering. The data reveal the phosphoprotein to assemble into a stable tetramer, with the regions outside the domain remaining highly flexible. A helix-breaking motif is observed between the α-helices at the midpoint of the domain that appears to be conserved across the Bornaviridae. These data provide information on an important component of the bornavirus replication complex.
Keywords: bornavirus; phosphoproteins; X-ray crystallography; negative-strand RNA viruses; replication.
PDB reference: multimerization domain of Borna disease virus 1, 8bs7
1. Introduction
Mammalian Borna disease virus 1 (BoDV-1) is a pathogen in the Bornaviridae family that causes neurological complications, and in some cases encephalitis and death (Hoffmann et al., 2015; Tappe et al., 2021). Other members of the Bornaviridae have been found to infect both avian and reptilian species (Kuhn et al., 2015; Rubbenstroth, 2022). Early reports on the virus suggested a causal role in many psychiatric disorders; however, this is no longer widely accepted (Rubbenstroth et al., 2019).
Bornaviridae are members of the order Mononegavirales, the members of which are nonsegmented negative-sense viruses (nsNSVs) with a single linear RNA genome (Rubbenstroth et al., 2021). While most members of the order replicate in the cytoplasm of the infected cell, currently only the Bornaviridae and a subset of plant-infecting Rhabdoviridae have been described to replicate in the cell nucleus (Jackson et al., 2005; Rubbenstroth et al., 2021).
BoDV-1 has the smallest genome of the Mononegavirales order, at 8.9 kilobases, which encodes at least six viral proteins (Fig. 1a; Rubbenstroth et al., 2021). Similar to other nsNSVs, the virus encodes proteins which facilitate cellular entry (glycoprotein), virion formation (matrix protein) and genome transcription and replication (nucleoprotein, large protein and phosphoprotein). BoDV-1 contains a viral accessory protein (X protein) which is poorly understood and is implicated to have a range of functions (Wensman et al., 2013; Fujino et al., 2012). Together, the nucleoprotein (N), large protein (L), phosphoprotein (P) and the viral RNA form a viral ribonucleoprotein (vRNP) complex. The viral N protein encapsulates the viral genome, protecting it from cellular nucleases. The L protein is an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and carries out transcription and genome replication. The P protein is a cofactor of the L protein and appears to also interact with the viral X protein (Fujino et al., 2012).
In members of the Mononegavirales order, the P protein plays two discrete roles while in complex with the L protein. One function is to tether the L protein to the RNP complex via interaction with RNA-bound N (Green & Luo, 2009). The second function is to bind and recruit RNA-free N (also denoted N0), which is added to newly synthesized RNA (Leyrat et al., 2011; Yabukarski et al., 2014; Guryanov et al., 2016; Leung et al., 2015; Renner et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2017; Aggarwal et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2022). Phosphoproteins appear to have a globally conserved structure with a central domain flanked by largely unstructured N- and C-termini (Cardone et al., 2021).
Structures of phosphoprotein Mononegavirales order have been determined both alone and in complex with other viral proteins. The most widely studied are those from the Paramyxoviridae, which have been shown to form tetramers with mediated by a large coiled coil (Blocquel et al., 2014; Bloyet et al., 2019; Bruhn et al., 2014; Communie et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2013; Tarbouriech et al., 2000). This tetrameric assembly has also been observed in complex with the viral L protein (Abdella et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2021). The domain of Filoviridae forms trimers under certain crystallization conditions (Bruhn et al., 2017; Zinzula et al., 2019), while forming tetramers when in complex with the L protein (Yuan et al., 2022). There are two examples of Rhabdoviridae P-protein domains from rabies virus and vesicular stomatitis virus, which each form different dimeric assemblies (Ding et al., 2006; Ivanov et al., 2010). One Pneumoviridae domain has been determined in isolation (Leyrat et al., 2013) and in complex with the L protein (Cao et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2020), with all of the structures showing as a short, coiled-coil tetramer.
domains of viruses within theIn the present study, we present the structure of the phosphoprotein in silico model generation suggest the unresolved N- and C-termini to be highly flexible in solution. Our study shows a close similarity to phosphoproteins from paramyxoviruses.
domain from BoDV-1, revealing a tetrameric assembly in solution and in a Analysis of the structure shows a helix-breaking motif, which combined with the pitch of the helix causes displacement of the helices. Small-angle X-ray scattering experiments and2. Methods
2.1. Protein cloning and purification
The mammalian BoDV-1 phosphoprotein (UniProt P0C799) with an N-terminal His8 tag and TEV protease site was expressed in Sf9 cells from a codon-optimized gene cloned into the MultiBac system. Cells were grown in Sf-900 II serum-free medium (Gibco). 72 h after infection, the cells were harvested and resuspended in wash buffer [50 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl, 0.05%(w/v) n-octyl β-D-thioglucopyranoside, 10%(v/v) glycerol, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 20 mM imidazole] supplemented with one protease-inhibitor tablet (Sigma) and 5 mg RNAse. The cells were then lysed by sonication prior to clarification by centrifugation. The supernatant was applied onto Ni–NTA and washed with wash buffer before the protein was eluted with wash buffer supplemented with 500 mM imidazole. The desired fractions were then pooled and 0.3 mg TEV protease was added. The sample was dialysed overnight against 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 5%(v/v) glycerol.
The cleaved protein was then diluted to decrease the NaCl concentration to 150 mM before being applied onto a 5 ml Q-HP column pre-equilibrated with 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5 and eluted with a linear gradient to 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 500 mM NaCl. Fractions containing the purified protein were pooled, concentrated and applied onto a Superdex 200 Increase 10/300 column equilibrated with 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5%(v/v) glycerol. Samples could not be frozen without aggregation.
2.2. Circular dichroism
BoDV-1 phosphoprotein was extensively dialysed against a buffer consisting of 10 mM sodium phosphate pH 7.4 prior to data collection. Spectra were collected from protein at a concentration of 0.05 mg ml−1 in a quartz cuvette with a 0.1 cm path length using a Jasco J-815 spectrophotometer. Data were corrected with a buffer spectrum scan and the units were converted to mean residue ellipticity.
2.3. Differential scanning calorimetry
The protein was dialysed into a buffer consisting of 20 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl. 400 µl protein at a concentration of 1.2 mg ml−1 (53 µM) was applied onto a Malvern VP Capillary DSC. Protein and running buffer controls were heated at a rate of 1°C min−1. The data were processed in OriginPro (OriginLab) using a non-two-state model to determine the thermal transition midpoint (Tm) and (Cp).
2.4. coupled to multi-angle laser light scattering
M HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5%(v/v) glycerol. Data were processed using the ASTRA suite of software (Wyatt Technologies).
coupled to multi-angle laser (SEC-MALLS) analysis was performed using a Shimadzu system connected to a HELEOS-II eight-angle laser light-scattering detector and an Optilab T-rEX refractive-index detector (Wyatt Technologies). All analysis was carried out at 20°C. 100 µl of each sample was applied onto a Superdex 200 10/300 column pre-equilibrated in a buffer consisting of 20 m2.5. Crystallization
100 nl of freshly purified full-length BoDV-1 phosphoprotein at a concentration of 6 mg ml−1 was mixed in a 1:1, 2:1 or 1:2 ratio with a set of sitting-drop crystallization screens and placed at room temperature. Crystals with a plate morphology appeared after approximately 24 days from a condition consisting of 0.2 M ammonium tartrate, 20%(w/v) PEG 3350. Crystals were harvested into a buffer consisting of reservoir solution supplemented with 25%(v/v) glycerol as a cryoprotectant and were cooled in liquid nitrogen. Crystallization conditions are summarized in Table 1.
|
2.6. and refinement
All diffraction experiments were carried out on the I03 beamline at Diamond Light Source. Data-collection and processing statistics are presented in Table 2. The data were initially reduced with autoPROC and STARANISO (Vonrhein et al., 2011). A primary-sequence search of the Protein Data Bank (PDB) yielded no models with sufficient similarity for use as a search template for Attempts were made to use ab initio models from ARCIMBOLDO (Caballero et al., 2018); however, these were unsuccessful. To leverage developments in protein prediction methods, a model was generated using the ColabFold implementation of the AlphaFold2 algorithm (Mirdita et al., 2022).
|
Using Phaser (McCoy et al., 2007), initial solutions were found with a single chain in P4212. These solutions showed the features that would be expected in a correctly phased map, including connected helical density and molecules which would pack to form a lattice; however, subsequent of these models did not decrease the Rfree or improve the map quality. The data set was expanded to P1 and was run again, searching for a truncated tetrameric domain comprising residues 95–145. This solution contains two antiparallel tetramers. The P1 solution was then refined with iterative rounds of manual model building in Coot (Casañal et al., 2020) and in phenix.refine (Afonine et al., 2018). in Phenix was carried out with torsion-angle noncrystallographic symmetry restraints and two TLS groups describing the region N- and C-terminal to the helix-breaking motif for each chain.
Attempts to extend the resolution of the usable data did not lead to a more interpretable map, to an improved fit to the data or to improved model statistics. After the model was complete in P1, Zanuda (Lebedev & Isupov, 2014) was used to determine whether a higher order could be used. No alternate space groups were found that yielded solutions that could be refined satisfactorily. Analysis of P1 using phenix.xtriage suggested that pseudo-merohedral may be present in the data. using either automatic twin in REFMAC5 (Murshudov et al., 2011) or manual input of the in phenix.refine resulted in a decrease in both Rwork and Rfree by 6% using REFMAC5 and by 2% using phenix.refine. However, the resulting 2Fo − Fc electron-density maps were of notably poorer quality compared with the P1 maps (Figs. 2a and 2b). From these analyses, we concluded that twin should not be included in the final processing of our data.
Final structure-solution and . The data and model have been deposited in the PDB with accession code 8bs7.
can be found in Table 3
|
2.7. Small-angle X-ray scattering
All data were collected on the B21 beamline at Diamond Light Source. Prior to experiments, the protein was buffer-exchanged into a buffer consisting of 20 mM HEPES pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5%(v/v) glycerol. All samples were collected by size exclusion prior to small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), in which 50 µl of sample was applied onto a Shodex KW-403 column with a flow rate of 0.16 ml min−1. Scattering data were collected at a wavelength of 0.9524 Å and a sample-to-detector distance of 3.7 m, and the data were recorded on an EIGER X 4M detector (Dectris). The data were processed using the ATSAS3 software suite (Manalastas-Cantos et al., 2021).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Oligomeric state of the BoDV-1 phosphoprotein
A synthetic gene encoding the full-length BoDV-1 phosphoprotein was cloned and expressed and the protein was purified to a high degree of purity, although it appears to be slightly degraded (Fig. 1b). To first confirm that the protein was correctly folded and achieve an initial understanding of the fold, we performed circular-dichroism spectroscopy. The spectrum showed minima at 208 and 222 nm and a maximum at 193 nm, which is a characteristic spectrum of a highly α-helical protein (Fig. 1c). Further analysis of the spectrum using BeStSel (Micsonai et al., 2018) predicts the protein to be 62% helical (good helix-1, 47%; distorted helix-2, 15%) and the rest of the structure to be 6% sheet, 5% turn and 27% other. This initial assessment suggests that the protein may be structured similarly to the Paramyxoviridae or Pneumoviridae proteins.
To determine the oligomeric state of the protein, we used SEC-MALLS and applied protein at concentrations of 1–4 mg ml−1. At all concentrations, we observed a symmetric elution peak with a consistent retention of 23.5 min (Fig. 1d). The coincident peaks suggest no concentration dependence of the The calculated protein molecular mass of the peak was approximately 82 kDa, which is in good agreement with the predicted molecular weight of a phosphoprotein tetramer of 90 kDa. The mismatch between the calculated and predicted molecular weight may arise from minor degradation of the phosphoprotein, which was observed even in freshly purified sample (Fig. 1b).
To determine the stability of the protein, we carried out thermal melt experiments using e). By analogy to other phosphoproteins, this could correspond to dissociation of the oligomer into protomers and subsequent unfolding of the coiled-coil domain (Bruhn et al., 2017). Next, we sought to understand the molecular details of the of the phosphoprotein.
(DSC). The melt experiment showed two distinct transitions at 59.7 and 68.3°C corresponding to two unfolding events (Fig. 13.2. Crystallization of the domain
We determined the structure of the BoDV-1 phosphoprotein using X-ray crystallography. The crystallographic a). The crystal form contains large gaps between the ordered proteins of 29–45 Å; presumably, this volume partially or fully contains the unresolved N- and/or C-terminal residues. The A–D tetramer is essentially identical to the E–H tetramer (r.m.s.d. of 0.31 Å for equivalent Cα atoms). Unless stated otherwise, we will discuss the tetramer formed by chains A–D as this is the most complete tetramer.
contains two copies of a P-protein tetramer that are stacked side by side in an antiparallel arrangement (Fig. 3Within the A–D tetramer, residues 85–152, 83–158, 82–162 and 83–162 are ordered in chains A, B, C and D, respectively (Fig. 3b). In good agreement with the circular-dichroism experiment, the ordered regions of the phosphoprotein are almost completely helical in nature. The domain is bipartite, with residues 82–124 forming an N-terminal helix of 63 Å in length and residues 129–162 forming a C-terminal helix of 53 Å in length.
The tetramer is maintained through a large buried hydrophobic interface, with each chain of the tetramer burying on average 2764 Å2 or approximately 40% of the total surface area of each chain with the three adjacent (Figs. 3c and 3d). Analysis of the structure shows a classical repeating heptad repeat, with hydrophobic residues forming `knobs-in-holes' packing with hydrophobic residues from adjacent chains (Fig. 3e) (Walshaw & Woolfson, 2003).
The helix-breaking motif, formed by residues Cys125, Asp126, His127 and Ser128 (Fig. 3b, inset), causes a rotational displacement of the chain by approximately 90° such that the C-terminal helix of one chain sits above the N-terminal helix of an adjacent chain in the tetramer. Surprisingly, the N-terminal and C-terminal helices are parallel, in contrast to the coiled-coil trimers/tetramers observed for paramyxovirus (Abdella et al., 2020; Blocquel et al., 2014; Bloyet et al., 2019; Bruhn et al., 2014; Communie et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2013; Tarbouriech et al., 2000) and filovirus (Bruhn et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2022; Zinzula et al., 2019) phosphoproteins, which twist around each other, placing the N-and C-termini of each chain above those of the adjacent chain. Deletion of a similar motif in the phosphoprotein from measles virus greatly reduced the activity of the virus (Bloyet et al., 2019).
3.3. Analysis of the flexible regions of the phosphoprotein
To understand the flexibility and movement of the regions of the phosphoprotein outside the a). A maximum dimension of 221 Å and a of 66 Å were determined for the full-length protein. Analysis of the pairwise distance distribution function shows a distribution with many shorter distances and a gradual fall-off at longer distances; this is indicative of a highly elongated particle (Fig. 4b). Examination of the (Fig. 4c) shows a profile characteristic of a particle which is partially unfolded.
domain, we collected SAXS data at three protein concentrations. The scattering curves for the three concentrations were highly similar; the highest concentration was therefore used as this had the highest signal to noise (Fig. 4To further understand possible locations of the unobserved regions of the phosphoprotein, six models were generated to model the possible positions of each termini. CORAL (Petoukhov et al., 2012) was used with the domain as a fixed core and the termini modelled without symmetry (Fig. 4d). No consensus position of the termini was observed; however, they did tend to be extended in a conformation away from the domain.
To test whether in silico model prediction suggested a consensus position of the termini, five models were generated with AlphaFold2. The predicted accuracy of the models was of high confidence over the domain of the phosphoprotein, while both termini were predicted with poor accuracy (Fig. 4e). Comparison of the structural models show a propensity of residues 40–55 to form helical arrangements that are similar to the phosphoprotein cap observed in the Sendai virus and Nipah virus phosphoprotein structures, although less well ordered (Fig. 4f; Bruhn et al., 2014; Tarbouriech et al., 2000).
3.4. Comparison of the domain with members of the Mononegavirales
Many structures of the a and 5b) although lacking the N-terminal capping helices. The tetramer is less twisted than the domains of either the measles virus or parainfluenza 5 virus. It is also dissimilar to the antiparallel mumps virus phosphoprotein tetramer.
domains of phosphoproteins have been determined either alone by X-ray crystallography or in complex with the viral polymerase by cryoelectron microscopy. The BoDV-1 structure determined here is assembled from approximately straight helices, similar to the Sendai and Nipah paramyxovirus structures (Figs. 5In contrast to the long helices observed in some species, Pneumoviridae phosphoproteins contain much shorter parallel helical domains which form tetramers (Fig. 5c). Rhabdoviridae phosphoproteins contain domains of a similar length but with unique assemblies. The rabies virus phosphoprotein forms a short helix–turn–helix dimer, while the vesicular stomatitis virus structure forms a dimeric assembly maintained by both α-helices and β-strands (Fig. 5d).
Filovirus phosphoproteins contain long e). Structures of Marburg and Ebola virus phosphoproteins have both been solved by X-ray crystallography and have been shown to form trimers. Recent cryoelectron microscopy data on the Ebola virus L–P complex shows the phosphoprotein to be a tetramer, suggesting there is some plasticity to the oligomeric state or that the trimers were perhaps crystallographic artefacts (Yuan et al., 2022; Zinzula et al., 2019).
domains formed from helices (Fig. 53.5. Conservation of the helix-breaking motif across the Bornaviridae
To investigate the biological conservation of the helix-breaking motif in our model, we generated AlphaFold2 predictions for a representative set of other Bornaviridae (Figs. 6a–6d). We first compared our experimentally determined BoDV-1 structure with the AlphaFold2 prediction and an essentially identical motif was observed in both (Figs. 3b and 6a). We observe a similar helix-breaking motif in the three structures tested; however, only the aspartic acid at the centre of the motif appears to be strictly conserved (Figs. 6b–6d). Residues immediately upstream or downstream of this aspartate appear to have some weak physiochemical conservation.
4. Conclusion
The phosphoprotein of Mononegavirales plays an essential role in the life cycle of the virus. In this work, we present the structure of the BoDV-1 phosphoprotein, showing it to be a stable tetramer both in solution and when crystallized. Tetramerization is important for at least two reasons. Firstly, during replication a tetrameric phosphoprotein will be able to maintain a higher local concentration of N0, which can readily bind RNA that is exposed as part of the replication process, minimizing the chance of recognition by the host. Secondly, the phosphoprotein needs to bind to L as well as to the N-RNA nucleocapsid (via N), so the tetrameric nature of P, containing multiple similar or identical interaction sites, allows it to act as a molecular chaperone binding simultaneously to these different components of the replicase complex. While this work was in preparation, Tarbouriech and coworkers published a similar structure of the BoDV-1 phosphoprotein domain complemented by functional studies showing the importance of the helix-breaking motif (Tarbouriech et al., 2022).
Footnotes
‡These authors contributed equally.
Acknowledgements
We thank I. Berger for the MultiBac system and members of the Fodor and Grimes laboratories for helpful comments and discussions. We acknowledge D. Staunton for assistance in collecting biophysical data. We thank Diamond Light Source for access to the SAXS and MX beamlines (proposal No. MX28534).
Funding information
This work was supported by a Wellcome structural DPhil scholarship (to JDW) and Wellcome Investigator Award 200835/Z/16/Z (to JMG).
References
Abdella, R., Aggarwal, M., Okura, T., Lamb, R. A. & He, Y. (2020). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 4931–4941. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Afonine, P. V., Poon, B. K., Read, R. J., Sobolev, O. V., Terwilliger, T. C., Urzhumtsev, A. & Adams, P. D. (2018). Acta Cryst. D74, 531–544. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Aggarwal, M., Leser, G. P., Kors, C. A. & Lamb, R. A. (2018). J. Virol. 92, e01304-17. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Blocquel, D., Habchi, J., Durand, E., Sevajol, M., Ferron, F., Erales, J., Papageorgiou, N. & Longhi, S. (2014). Acta Cryst. D70, 1589–1603. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Bloyet, L.-M., Schramm, A., Lazert, C., Raynal, B., Hologne, M., Walker, O., Longhi, S. & Gerlier, D. (2019). Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw3702. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Bruhn, J. F., Barnett, K. C., Bibby, J., Thomas, J. M. H., Keegan, R. M., Rigden, D. J., Bornholdt, Z. A. & Saphire, E. O. (2014). J. Virol. 88, 758–762. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bruhn, J. F., Kirchdoerfer, R. N., Urata, S. M., Li, S., Tickle, I. J., Bricogne, G. & Saphire, E. O. (2017). J. Virol. 91, e01085-16. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Caballero, I., Sammito, M., Millán, C., Lebedev, A., Soler, N. & Usón, I. (2018). Acta Cryst. D74, 194–204. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Cao, D., Gao, Y., Roesler, C., Rice, S., D'Cunha, P., Zhuang, L., Slack, J., Domke, M., Antonova, A., Romanelli, S., Keating, S., Forero, G., Juneja, P. & Liang, B. (2020). Nat. Commun. 11, 368. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Cardone, C., Caseau, C.-M., Pereira, N. & Sizun, C. (2021). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 1537. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Casañal, A., Lohkamp, B. & Emsley, P. (2020). Protein Sci. 29, 1069–1078. Web of Science PubMed Google Scholar
Communie, G., Crépin, T., Maurin, D., Jensen, M. R., Blackledge, M. & Ruigrok, R. W. H. (2013). J. Virol. 87, 7166–7169. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Cox, R., Green, T. J., Purushotham, S., Deivanayagam, C., Bedwell, G. J., Prevelige, P. E. & Luo, M. (2013). J. Virol. 87, 7558–7568. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ding, H., Green, T. J., Lu, S. & Luo, M. (2006). J. Virol. 80, 2808–2814. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Dong, X., Wang, X., Xie, M., Wu, W. & Chen, Z. (2022). J. Virol. 96, e01648-21. CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fujino, K., Horie, M., Honda, T., Nakamura, S., Matsumoto, Y., Francischetti, I. M. B. & Tomonaga, K. (2012). PLoS One, 7, e51161. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Green, T. J. & Luo, M. (2009). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 11713–11718. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Guryanov, S. G., Liljeroos, L., Kasaragod, P., Kajander, T. & Butcher, S. J. (2016). J. Virol. 90, 2849–2857. CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Hoffmann, B., Tappe, D., Höper, D., Herden, C., Boldt, A., Mawrin, C., Niederstrasser, O., Müller, T., Jenckel, M., van der Grinten, E., Lutter, C., Abendroth, B., Teifke, J. P., Cadar, D., Schmidt-Chanasit, J., Ulrich, R. G. & Beer, M. (2015). N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 154–162. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ivanov, I., Crépin, T., Jamin, M. & Ruigrok, R. W. H. (2010). J. Virol. 84, 3707–3710. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Jackson, A. O., Dietzgen, R. G., Goodin, M. M., Bragg, J. N. & Deng, M. (2005). Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 43, 623–660. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. H., Dürrwald, R., Bào, Y., Briese, T., Carbone, K., Clawson, A. N., deRisi, J. L., Garten, W., Jahrling, P. B., Kolodziejek, J., Rubbenstroth, D., Schwemmle, M., Stenglein, M., Tomonaga, K., Weissenböck, H. & Nowotny, N. (2015). Arch. Virol. 160, 621–632. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lebedev, A. A. & Isupov, M. N. (2014). Acta Cryst. D70, 2430–2443. Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Leung, D. W., Borek, D., Luthra, P., Binning, J. M., Anantpadma, M., Liu, G., Harvey, I. B., Su, Z., Endlich-Frazier, A., Pan, J., Shabman, R. S., Chiu, W., Davey, R. A., Otwinowski, Z., Basler, C. F. & Amarasinghe, G. K. (2015). Cell. Rep. 11, 376–389. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Leyrat, C., Renner, M., Harlos, K. & Grimes, J. M. (2013). PLoS One, 8, e80371. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Leyrat, C., Yabukarski, F., Tarbouriech, N. Jr, Ribeiro, E. A., Jensen, M. R., Blackledge, M., Ruigrok, R. W. H. & Jamin, M. (2011). PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002248. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Manalastas-Cantos, K., Konarev, P. V., Hajizadeh, N. R., Kikhney, A. G., Petoukhov, M. V., Molodenskiy, D. S., Panjkovich, A., Mertens, H. D. T., Gruzinov, A., Borges, C., Jeffries, C. M., Svergun, D. I. & Franke, D. (2021). J. Appl. Cryst. 54, 343–355. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
McCoy, A. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Adams, P. D., Winn, M. D., Storoni, L. C. & Read, R. J. (2007). J. Appl. Cryst. 40, 658–674. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Micsonai, A., Wien, F., Bulyáki, É., Kun, J., Moussong, É., Lee, Y.-H., Goto, Y., Réfrégiers, M. & Kardos, J. (2018). Nucleic Acids Res. 46, W315–W322. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S. & Steinegger, M. (2022). Nat. Methods, 19, 679–682. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Murshudov, G. N., Skubák, P., Lebedev, A. A., Pannu, N. S., Steiner, R. A., Nicholls, R. A., Winn, M. D., Long, F. & Vagin, A. A. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 355–367. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Pan, J., Qian, X., Lattmann, S., El Sahili, A., Yeo, T. H., Jia, H., Cressey, T., Ludeke, B., Noton, S., Kalocsay, M., Fearns, R. & Lescar, J. (2020). Nature, 577, 275–279. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Petoukhov, M. V., Franke, D., Shkumatov, A. V., Tria, G., Kikhney, A. G., Gajda, M., Gorba, C., Mertens, H. D. T., Konarev, P. V. & Svergun, D. I. (2012). J. Appl. Cryst. 45, 342–350. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Renner, M., Bertinelli, M., Leyrat, C., Paesen, G. C., Saraiva de Oliveira, L. F., Huiskonen, J. T. & Grimes, J. M. (2016). eLife, 5, e12627. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Rubbenstroth, D. (2022). Viruses, 14, 1513. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Rubbenstroth, D., Briese, T., Dürrwald, R., Horie, M., Hyndman, T. H., Kuhn, J. H., Nowotny, N., Payne, S., Stenglein, M. D., Tomonaga, K. & ICTV Report Consortium (2021). J. Gen. Virol. 102, 001613. PubMed Google Scholar
Rubbenstroth, D., Schlottau, K., Schwemmle, M., Rissland, J. & Beer, M. (2019). PLoS Pathog. 15, e1007873. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Tappe, D., Pörtner, K., Frank, C., Wilking, H., Ebinger, A., Herden, C., Schulze, C., Muntau, B., Eggert, P., Allartz, P., Schuldt, G., Schmidt-Chanasit, J., Beer, M. & Rubbenstroth, D. (2021). BMC Infect. Dis. 21, 787. Google Scholar
Tarbouriech, N., Chenavier, F., Kawasaki, J., Bachiri, K., Bourhis, J.-M., Legrand, P., Freslon, L. L., Laurent, E. M. N., Suberbielle, E., Ruigrok, R. W. H., Tomonaga, K., Gonzalez-Dunia, D., Horie, M., Coyaud, E. & Crépin, T. (2022). Viruses, 14, 2358. CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Tarbouriech, N., Curran, J., Ruigrok, R. W. H. & Burmeister, W. P. (2000). Nat. Struct. Biol. 7, 777–781. PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Vonrhein, C., Flensburg, C., Keller, P., Sharff, A., Smart, O., Paciorek, W., Womack, T. & Bricogne, G. (2011). Acta Cryst. D67, 293–302. Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Walshaw, J. & Woolfson, D. N. (2003). J. Struct. Biol. 144, 349–361. CrossRef PubMed CAS Google Scholar
Wensman, J. J., Munir, M., Thaduri, S., Hörnaeus, K., Rizwan, M., Blomström, A.-L., Briese, T., Lipkin, W. I. & Berg, M. (2013). J. Gen. Virol. 94, 263–269. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Xie, J., Wang, L., Zhai, G., Wu, D., Lin, Z., Wang, M., Yan, X., Gao, L., Huang, X., Fearns, R. & Chen, S. (2021). bioRxiv, 2021.09.13.460081. Google Scholar
Yabukarski, F., Lawrence, P., Tarbouriech, N., Bourhis, J.-M., Delaforge, E., Jensen, M. R., Ruigrok, R. W. H., Blackledge, M., Volchkov, V. & Jamin, M. (2014). Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 21, 754–759. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yuan, B., Peng, Q., Cheng, J., Wang, M., Zhong, J., Qi, J., Gao, G. F. & Shi, Y. (2022). Nature, 610, 394–401. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zhu, T., Song, H., Peng, R., Shi, Y., Qi, J. & Gao, G. F. (2017). J. Virol. 91, e00996-17. CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zinzula, L., Nagy, I., Orsini, M., Weyher-Stingl, E., Bracher, A. & Baumeister, W. (2019). Structure, 27, 39–54. CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.