In vivo imaging reveals novel replication sites of a highly oncogenic avian herpesvirus in chickens.

In vivo bioluminescence imaging facilitates the non-invasive visualization of biological processes in living animals. This system has been used to track virus infections mostly in mice and ferrets; however, until now this approach has not been applied to pathogens in avian species. To visualize the infection of an important avian pathogen, we generated Marek's disease virus (MDV) recombinants expressing firefly luciferase during lytic replication. Upon characterization of the recombinant viruses in vitro, chickens were infected and the infection visualized in live animals over the course of 14 days. The luminescence signal was consistent with the known spatiotemporal kinetics of infection and the life cycle of MDV, and correlated well with the viral load measured by qPCR. Intriguingly, this in vivo bioimaging approach revealed two novel sites of MDV replication, the beak and the skin of the feet covered in scales. Feet skin infection was confirmed using a complementary fluorescence bioimaging approach with MDV recombinants expressing mRFP or GFP. Infection was detected in the intermediate epidermal layers of the feet skin that was also shown to produce infectious virus, regardless of the animals' age at and the route of infection. Taken together, this study highlights the value of in vivo whole body bioimaging in avian species by identifying previously overlooked sites of replication and shedding of MDV in the chicken host.

UL36 Encoded by Marek's Disease Virus Exhibits Linkage-Specific Deubiquitinase Activity.

(1) Background: Deubiquitinase (DUB) regulates various important cellular processes via reversing the protein ubiquitination. The N-terminal fragment of a giant tegument protein, UL36, encoded by the Marek's disease (MD) virus (MDV), encompasses a putative DUB (UL36-DUB) and shares no homology with any known DUBs. The N-terminus 75 kDa fragment of UL36 exists in MD T lymphoma cells at a high level and participates in MDV pathogenicity. (2) Methods: To characterize deubiquitinating activity and substrate specificity of UL36-DUB, the UL36 N-terminal fragments, UL36(323), UL36(480), and mutants were prepared using the Bac-to-Bac system. The deubiquitinating activity and substrate specificity of these recombinant UL36-DUBs were analyzed using various ubiquitin (Ub) or ubiquitin-like (UbL) substrates and activity-based deubiquitinating enzyme probes. (3) Results: The results indicated that wild type UL36-DUBs show a different hydrolysis ability against varied types of ubiquitin chains. These wild type UL36-DUBs presented the highest activity to K11, K48, and K63 linkage Ub chains, weak activity to K6, K29, and K33 Ub chains, and no activity to K27 linkage Ub chain. UL36 has higher cleavage efficiency for K48 and K63 poly-ubiquitin than linear ubiquitin chain (M1-Ub4), but no activity on various ubiquitin-like modifiers. The mutation of C98 and H234 residues eliminated the deubiquitinating activity of UL36-DUB. D232A mutation impacted, but did not eliminated UL36(480) activity. The Ub-Br probe can bind to wild type UL36-DUB and mutants UL36(480)H234A and UL36(480)D232A, but not C98 mutants. These in vitro results suggested that the C98 and H234 are essential catalytic residues of UL36-DUB. UL36-DUB exhibited a strict substrate specificity. Inhibition assay revealed that UL36-DUB exhibits resistance to the Roche protease inhibitor cocktail and serine protease inhibitor, but not to the Solarbio protease inhibitor cocktail. (4) Conclusions: UL36-DUB exhibited a strict substrate preference, and the protocol developed in the current study for obtaining active UL36-DUB protein should promote the high-throughput screening of UL36 inhibitors and the study on the function of MDV-encoded UL36.