Skip to main content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Future Virol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Future Virol. 2011 Apr; 6(4): 451–463.
doi: 10.2217/fvl.11.21
PMCID: PMC3142679
NIHMSID: NIHMS304451
PMID: 21799704

Virus reactivation: a panoramic view in human infections

Abstract

Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites, relying to a major extent on the host cell for replication. An active replication of the viral genome results in a lytic infection characterized by the release of new progeny virus particles, often upon the lysis of the host cell. Another mode of virus infection is the latent phase, where the virus is ‘quiescent’ (a state in which the virus is not replicating). A combination of these stages, where virus replication involves stages of both silent and productive infection without rapidly killing or even producing excessive damage to the host cells, falls under the umbrella of a persistent infection. Reactivation is the process by which a latent virus switches to a lytic phase of replication. Reactivation may be provoked by a combination of external and/or internal cellular stimuli. Understanding this mechanism is essential in developing future therapeutic agents against viral infection and subsequent disease. This article examines the published literature and current knowledge regarding the viral and cellular proteins that may play a role in viral reactivation. The focus of the article is on those viruses known to cause latent infections, which include herpes simplex virus, varicella zoster virus, Epstein–Barr virus, human cytomegalovirus, human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus, JC virus, BK virus, parvovirus and adenovirus.

Keywords: adenoviridae, cellular factors, herpesviridae, latency, lytic, parvoviridae, polyomaviridae, reactivation

Virus replication is a complicated process. It involves different steps from the time a virus binds to the target cells until new progeny virons are made and released to the outside. A replication phase that yields progeny virions is referred to as a productive or lytic cycle of infection. Lytic infection involves the replication of a viral genome. This genome is packaged into a viral coat and released from the cell. This process of viral release from the cells results in lysis of cells, and hence, it is termed the ‘lytic phase’. There are a few relevant human viruses that have another phase of replication, usually referred to as the ‘latent phase’ – in other words, the virus lays dormant in this latent phase of replication. Latent infections have the ability to be reactivated into a lytic form. The ability to move back and forth from latent to lytic infections helps the virus spread from infected individuals to uninfected individuals. Apart from these two phases, a few viruses also have yet another method of replication, termed ‘persistent infection’. Persistent viruses (e.g., hepatitis B virus) are those that are not eliminated following primary infection and remain in specific cells of the infected individuals. An infected individual experiences a persistent infection in which the virus is capable of replicating slowly, silently or at low levels without causing excessive damage to the host cell. This article focuses primarily on the latent-to-lytic switch that leads to virus reactivation.

Reactivation is the mechanism whereby a latent virus that has infected a host cell switches to a lytic stage, undergoing productive viral replication and allowing the virus to spread. Viral reactivation is associated with several stress factors [1], including viral infection (with other viruses), nerve trauma, physiologic and physical changes (e.g., fever, menstruation and exposure to sunlight) and immunosuppression (as in cytomegalovirus [CMV] disease). However, increasing evidence suggest that reactivation frequently occurs in the absence of such stimuli. This premise asserts that viruses are continuously shed, but that reactivation only occurs when local immunity is compromised by stimuli such as fever, menstruation and exposure to sunlight [2]. Generally, a lytic cycle of virus infection in vitro can be induced in cells harboring a latent virus genome by treatment with 12-O-tetradecanoyl phorbol-13-acetate (TPA) [3]. Although we have an idea of the potential stimuli that may trigger virus reactivation from latency, the critical molecular factor (SWITCH) that triggers virus reactivation is still not clear.

There are two sides to the molecular switch triggering virus reactivation: first, virus-encoded immediate-early (IE) genes, and; second, cellular components. Virus-encoded IE genes are those that initiate virus reactivation as monitored by the expression of virus-encoded transcripts. These genes, when artificially overexpressed in latently infected cells, can potentially trigger a cascade of events that would result in the expression of a series of lytic cycle genes. On the other hand, there is the role of cellular factors, which, of late, have been found to play a crucial role in virus reactivation. This article reviews the available literature on the roles for the virus-encoded machinery and the cellular events in the reactivation process.

Viral latency

Many viruses have a propensity to cause latent infections. The majority of these viruses are from the family of Herpesviridae: herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1, HSV-2, varicella zoster virus (VZV), Epstein–Barr virus (EBV), CMV, human herpesvirus (HHV)-6, HHV-7 and Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV/HHV)-8. Both JC and BK virus (which belong to the family Polyomaviridae), adenovirus (family: Adenoviridae) and parvovirus and adeno-associated virus (AAV; family: Parvoviridae), also have a latent phase of replication. The focus of this article will be on these viruses (Table 1).

Table 1

Viruses that have the potential to cause both latent and lytic cycles of replication.

VirusAssociated disease conditionsRef.
Herpesviridae
HSV-1Cold sores, herpetic whitlow, encephalitis, herpetic keratitis and herpes pharyngitis[113,114]
HSV-2Genital herpes[115]
VZVChicken pox and shingles[116]
EBVMononucleosis, Burkitt’s lymphoma, naso–pharyngeal carcinoma, hairy oral leukoplakia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma[117,118]
CMVCongenital diseases, heterophile-negative mononucleosis syndrome, hypertension and atherosclerosis[119,120]
HHV-6Roseola[121]
HHV-7Roseola[122]
KSHV (HHV-8)Kaposi’s sarcoma, primary effusion lymphoma and multicentric Castleman disease[123,124]
Papillomaviridae
JC virusProgressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy[97]
BK virusBK virus nephropathy[125]
Parvoviridae
Parvovirus b19Fifth disease and ‘gloves-and-socks’ syndrome[126]
AAVNo disease is associated with this virus as of yet[127]
Adenoviridae
AdenovirusPharyngitis, keratoconjunctivitis, gastroenteritis, hemorrhagic cystitis and meningoencephalitis[128,129]

AAV: Adeno-associated virus; CMV: Cytomegalovirus; EBV: Epstein–Barr virus; HHV: Human herpesvirus; HSV: Herpes simplex virus; KSHV: Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus; VZV: Varicella zoster virus.

HIV rarely causes a latent infection, with a frequency of 106–107 cells per infected individual. This occurs owing to transcriptional silencing [4]. After initial infection, HIV integrates into the chromosomes, more specifically into heterochromatin. Due to this mechanism, HIV can reproducibly create a latent infection. As HIV is a retrovirus and present as RNA, reverse transcription needs to occur if the RNA is to integrate with the host DNA. The RNA is transcribed into a cDNA copy, and this is then integrated into the chromosome of the host cell via specific sequences and sites located on the viral and cellular genome [5]. The latent infection of CD4 cells with HIV causes great difficulty in eliminating the virus completely, as the virus is undetectable to the immune system, partly because HIV kills the very same CD4+ cells that would otherwise orchestrate the immune response. ART can stabilize the infection, but stopping this treatment and activating the cells can lead to a systemic infection due to production of the virus [6].

Along the same lines, integration of virus DNA into the host chromosome may indirectly support virus latency in other DNA viruses. Specifically, polyomaviruses and some herpes-viruses, to a lesser extent, can have their genomes integrated into host chromosomes. Integration of the recently identified Merkel cell polyomavirus DNA leads to truncation of the large T antigen, thus preventing virus replication in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cells [7,8]. However, the truncated large T antigen maintains a protein-binding domain that is capable of binding the retinoblastoma protein, which may aid in tumor progression [8]. Herpesvirus DNA integration is a rare occurrence, with EBV and HHV-6 being the most notable examples, as they are currently the only HHVs to have successfully demonstrated integration of their entire genomes [9]. Although several latency factors can be transcribed, evidence supporting reactivation from integrated herpesvirus genomes has not been described [9,10].

Virus reactivation

The genome of a virus that causes latent infection of cells must be transcribed and translated into viral proteins. This occurs when the virus is reactivated from a latent stage to a lytic stage. Certain viral genes that are specific to each virus initiate this reactivation process.

In general, lytic infection of a virus is characterized by expression of a variety of virus-encoded genes whose roles are directed in one way or the other to make progeny virions. During a lytic phase of infection, viral genes are temporally expressed. Based on the time of their expression with respect to the initial onset of reactivation, the genes are referred to as IE genes, early (E) genes and late (L) genes. The IE, E, and L genes encode for proteins that usually regulate gene transcription, viral replication and structural proteins that lead to virion formation, respectively. Accordingly, IE genes are said to play the most crucial role in the reactivation process. Each virus has a set of regulatory genes that are activated when going into its lytic state. Although some viral gene products have been identified, the exact mechanisms behind transcriptional activation that determine a virus’ reactivation from latency are still unknown [11]. To make this process clearer, there have been various approaches to examining how a virus reactivates, some focusing on the regulatory cascade of gene expression in productive infections.

Herpes simplex virus-1 establishes latency in sensory ganglia as a nonintegrated, nucleosome-associated episome in the nucleus of infected cells. During latency, transcription of viral genome is limited to the latency-associated transcript (LAT) [12]. This gene is primarily involved in not only establishing and maintaining latency of the virus but may also aid in protecting the latent HSV-1 reservoir from cytopathic superinfections [13]. Interestingly, numerous studies have demonstrated LAT to inhibit apoptosis (programmed cell death) in the trigeminal ganglia of infected animals and transiently transfected cells [1417]. Thus, LAT also has a role in virus reactivation by prolonging or inhibiting neuronal death during reactivation [18]. Experiments on HSV-1 have indicated that the viral transactivator proteins ICP0, ICP4 and VP16 are critical for virus reactivation from a latent state [19,20]. This was based on trans expression studies in vitro and ex vivo as well as latency studies involving HSV-1 recombinants deleted or mutated in the viral transactivators. There have been conflicting reports that ICP0 is important in viral production but is not necessary for the initiation of reactivation [21]. This report points towards ICP0 being involved with the virus production after the lytic stage has been activated. Recent studies have also demonstrated that VP16 is essential for efficient stress-induced reactivation from QIF-PC12 cells, whereas ICP0 is not [22]. A multitude of different studies investigating HSV reactivation show that the mechanisms are extremely intricate and challenging to understand. Such a complex process is synonymous with HSV-2 where ICP0 is sufficient to reactivate the latent virus in an in vitro system [23].

The VZV is also known as HHV-3. It displays a primary lytic infection that causes chicken pox and can reactivate from its latent state to produce an incapacitating disease in adults called shingles/zoster [24]. The incidence of zoster in the USA is approximately 5–6.5 per 1000 individuals per annum at 60 years of age, increasing to 8–11 per 1000 at 70 years of age [25]. Unlike varicella, which occurs primarily during the spring, there is no seasonal preference for zoster. Immunodeficiency may be a vital predisposing factor for the development of zoster. It is a concern in patients with a natural decline in VZV-specific cell-mediated immunity with age, and also for those with more serious immune deficits such as those seen in cancer patients and transplant recipients, and more so in AIDS patients [26]. Although VZV was the first viral herpesvirus to be sequenced, not much information is available regarding viral reactivation, partly because of the fact that it is an exclusively human pathogen. Transcription of ORF63 is the signature of VZV latent infection [27].

Epstein–Barr virus (HHV-4) displays latent and lytic cycles mainly in B lymphocytes and epithelial cells [28]. EBV is an oncogenic γ-herpes virus that persistently infects over 95% of the human population [29]. EBV Zta protein is the crucial transactivator of a variety of viral and host genes that are essential for the reactivation of EBV from latency [30]. EBV-encoded Zta’s role in virus reactivation was recently demonstrated using a severe combined immunodeficiency mouse model [31]. Zta-knockout EBV cannot enter a complete lytic cycle in severe combined immunodeficiency mice, showing the key role for Zta in initiating virus reactivation.

Another member of the herpesvirus family, the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV/HHV-5), persists as a subclinical, lifelong infection in the human host owing to its ability to stay dormant. In vivo, cells of the myeloid lineage harbor HCMV in a latent phase [32]. The differentiation of myeloid cells may hold the crucial link for HCMV reactivation. For example, differentiation of myeloid progenitor cells specifically to dendritic cells not only reactivated viral lytic gene expression but also led to the production of infectious virus particles [33]. The mechanisms by which CMV replication and latency are regulated remain unclear. IE genes are required for viral replication. The major IE (MIE) gene products, which are autoregulatory transactivators that trigger the expression of downstream viral genes in transient assays, are found to be key players governing the productive cycle and are often found to be repressed in nonpermissive or latent infections [34]. Reactivation from the latent state must be mediated first by inducible host cell factors acting at the transcriptional level on the MIE enhancer. The CMV MIE gene products, IE1 and IE2 proteins, are presumed to be involved directly in regulating subsequent gene expression during the viral lytic cascade, as well as acting as potential triggers of the switch between latent and lytic infection [35].

Human herpesvirus 6 and HHV-7 establish latent infections predominantly in macrophages and T lymphocytes [36,37]. Both of these viruses are shed in the saliva of healthy people. The reactivated virus is associated with asymptomatic infection; however, it may cause severe disease conditions in transplant recipients [38]. More recently, this has been demonstrated by investigating the HHV-6 IE2 gene (equivalent to the MIE within HCMV), which is important in viral growth and transcriptional regulation [39]. Interestingly, HHV-6 has been shown to activate the lytic replication of KSHV, which may suggest that the virus pathways and open reading frames are closely related [40]. HHV-7 is closely related to HHV-6 [41]. As with VZV, not much is known about the crucial viral genes that trigger virus reactivation in HHV-6 and HHV-7.

The last addition to the list of human herpes-viruses is KSHV, which is also commonly referred to as HHV-8. This belongs to the γ2-herpesvirus family (genus: Rhadinovirus) [42]. It is broadly known that KSHV Rta activates KSHV E lytic genes, including virus-encoded IL-6 and polyadenylated nuclear RNA, and a L gene, small viral capsid antigen [43]. It is considered to be the switch that triggers virus reactivation. Interestingly, KSHV Rta is the functional equivalent of EBV Zta [44]. KSHV reactivation can be triggered in vitro by treating cells with TPA or infecting cells with HCMV [45,46].

The exact triggers for the virus reactivation process in the cases of adenovirus, JC, BK and parvovirus in terms of virus-encoded proteins are poorly understood phenomena. It is hypothesized that major gene rearrangements, and possibly nucleotide sequence alterations in transcription binding sites, could serve as the ‘switch’ between latent and lytic infections [47]. AAV (another parvovirus) replication is dependent on one or more adenovirus E genes. HSV E genes are not necessary for AAV replication, yet some may be able to directly participate in AAV DNA replication [48].

Role of cellular proteins in virus reactivation

As it is, different viruses use different mechanisms in terms of viral encoded proteins to trigger their replication. These proteins that initiate virus replication are held in check by certain other proteins that promote virus latency – usually not more than a couple of transcripts. On the other hand, cellular factors are said to play a crucial role in initiating signals critical for the switch from latent to lytic infection. In this section, we have attempted to understand the set of crucial cellular signatures that have the potential to set up virus reactivation.

Herpes simplex virus reactivation from latency is initiated by external stimuli like stress and immunosuppression that stimulate viral gene expression [18]. Using microarrays, it was determined that the expression of certain early response genes was elevated in latently infected trigeminal ganglion, supporting virus reactivation triggered by stress [49]. The early response gene mRNAs that were increased during virus reactivation were heat-shock proteins ([HSP]40 and HSP60), basic transcription factors (TFs; BTF T62), DNA repair enzyme, MAPK, stress-induced protein kinase, oxidative stress-induced protein, manganese superoxide dismutase precursor-2 and cyclooxygenase 2. The cell-division cycle can be defined as the series of events that occur between one cell division and the next, and is a key factor in mediating HSV reactivation. Cyclin D2 gene expression was increased upon treating latently infected mice with immunosuppressant drugs that induced HSV reactivation [50]. Cyclin D consists of three subtypes of cyclins: cyclin D1, cyclin D2 and cyclin D3. Cyclin D2 contributes to not only sequestering the cell-cycle inhibitor p27 but also to switching from the G1 phase of the cell cycle through to S phase [51]. Cyclins, in general, bind a family of proteins referred to as cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) to phosphorylate and thus activate them [52]. CDKs regulate cell-cycle progression. HSV replication is dependent on the expression of cellular CDKs [53]. Inhibiting CDKs (specifically CDK-1, -2 and -5) significantly lowers virus replication [54]. CDKs are absent in quiescent neurons. Along with the loss of NGF-mediated latency, the expression of CDK-1 and -2 is elevated, likely supporting HSV reactivation [55,56]. Recent studies have also implicated a role for cyclin D3 in HSV replication [57]. HSV-1-encoded ICP0 is a regulatory protein that recruits cyclin D3 to the nucleus. The authors hypothesize that this facilitates the availability of activated CDK-4 in the replication compartment, which is a necessity for the onset and maintenance of viral DNA synthesis.

Multiple signaling pathways seem to have a role in VZV reactivation. JNK/SAPK and p38/MAPK pathways appear to be essential for VZV replication. Rahaus and colleagues have shown that inhibition of ERK1/2-associated signaling cascade resulted in a decline in viral progeny, thus suggesting that this pathway also plays an important role in viral replication [58]. The mechanism of activation of the above signaling cascades resulting in a lytic mode of replication remains unclear.

Both Zta and Rta are key lytic transactivators that autostimulate their own expression, reciprocally induce one another and cooperatively direct the downstream expression cascade of EBV lytic genes [59]. How these factors, in combination with cellular TFs, cause expression of lytic genes remains undetermined. Studies have demonstrated that Zta and Rta are involved in the activation of p38, ERK and JNK signal transduction pathways, which may play a role in EBV reactivation [6062]. In vitro, the lytic cycle can be induced by a variety of stimuli including changes in intracellular calcium concentration, treatment with phorbol ester, sodium butyrate, antihuman immunoglobulin, or TGF. In vivo, the mechanism by which the lytic cycle of EBV activation occurs is unknown.

A current theory about CMV infection is that undifferentiated monocytes harbor the virus in its latent phase, thereby allowing for extensive spread throughout the body [63]. Lytic infection is commonly observed in monocytes only after differentiation. In other words, cell-cycle progression does have a role to play in CMV reactivation as well. Reactivation of CMV is dependent on the CMV IE gene enhancer/promoter that regulates IE gene products and initiates CMV replication. Both NF-κB and c-Jun play a crucial role in activating the CMV IE promoter and hence viral reactivation [64,65]. In the case of transplanted patients, allogeneic responses induce IE gene expression, which in turn results in the expression of TNF and subsequent activation of TFs, NF-κB and AP-1 [66]. Cellular factors that are known to modify chromatin structure are said to play roles in cell differentiation-dependent CMV reactivation [67]. It is now well established that the regulation of many cellular genes involves interference at the level of their chromatin structure: active promoters are associated with acetylated histones whereas under-acetylated/methylated histones repress transcription of genes [68]. Chromatinization of IE gene promoters is implicated in CMV reactivation as in the case of EBV and HSV [28,34,69].

The phase of the cell cycle has a key role to play in HHV-6 infection. HHV-6 infection of target cells induces cell-cycle arrest by modulating expression of E2F TFs [70]. TF p53 induces cell-cycle arrest or apoptosis in target cells [71]. Recent studies have shown the ability of p53 to lower HHV-6 replication without actually influencing cell-cycle progression or apoptosis [72]. Limited research has been conducted to understand the role of cellular factors aiding in HHV-7 reactivation given the fact that its association with disease conditions is rare [73]. However, it has been documented that HHV-7 has the potential to reactivate HHV-6 latent infections [74,75].

Recently, it was shown that TPA-induced reactivation was optimal in KSHV-infected human B cells that were in the S phase of the cell cycle compared with the other phases [45,76]. In addition, using microarrays, we demonstrated that the cells in S phase of the cell cycle have their machinery tuned to provide signals that promote cell survivability and active DNA replication, and increased lipid metabolism, while blocking cell-cycle progression to M phase. All of these facets play a major role in terminating KSHV latency [45]. It is widely believed that a combination of well-orchestrated interactions between KSHV and the cellular environment leads to reactivation of latency. Recently, separate studies from our laboratory and another described a role for the MAPK in inducing KSHV reactivation [77,78]. These studies demonstrated that either inhibiting or overexpressing the B-Raf-associated MEK-ERK1/2 signaling resulted in lowering or enhancing the TPA-induced KSHV reactivation process, respectively. These findings have been further confirmed by a systematic and elaborate study published recently [79,80]. Furthermore, two other separate studies have described that inhibiting NF-κB signaling can promote KSHV reactivation under selective conditions [81,82]. However, the exact biomolecular switch that triggers KSHV reactivation remains elusive. KSHV-encoded Rta is the switch carried by the virus to initiate virus reactivation [83]. Multiple pathways involving a variety of TFs, including autoactivation by Rta, have been shown to either enhance or inhibit ORF50 gene transcription [78,8489]. Such a repertoire of different and, to some extent, redundant activating factors or pathways makes for an efficient mechanism to control one of the key features of virus replication – specifically, reactivation during different stages of pathogenesis as well as under different cellular environments. All the factors that have been described thus far to regulate the expression of Rta can be classified as cellular proteins, nuclear-associated virus-encoded proteins or chemicals. Recently, we have described the ability of the KSHV-encoded membrane-bound glycoprotein B (gB; an envelope-associated protein) to promote latency by regulating expression of a TF, early growth response-1 (Egr-1) [90].

Adenovirus can cause disease in immuno-compromised patients, owing to the reactivation of the virus [91]. Infections may also arise after transplantation, suggesting that adenovirus is reactivated endogenously [91]. Adenovirus maintains latency through E3 immunoregulatory genes that contain NF-κB binding sites, and are activated during inflammation due to the TNF-α-induced signal transduction pathway [92]. Adenovirus E1A gene products are transactivators that can interact with cellular TFs, transcriptional cofactors and cell-cycle-regulatory proteins crucial for reactivation [93]. Also, proteins encoded by E3 and E4 genes seem to have a critical role in the lysis of infected cells [94,95].

JC and BK virus reactivation is regulated by the nuclear factor of T cells via its ability to interact with a variety of signaling molecules such as c-Jun, c-fos and NF-κB p65 subunits [9698]. Incidentally, HIV Tat protein has been demonstrated to activate BK virus from latency by activating NF-κB p65 activity [99].

Parvovirus B19 maintains a latent infection by regulating pathways that include AP-1 and SP1, NF-κB pathway, TNF-α and p53 through the virus-encoded NS1 protein [100]. However, the exact mechanism by which cellular events initiate parvovirus reactivation is yet to be elucidated.

A possible unifying theme for the molecular trigger from within the cells that initiates virus reactivation

We believe that cellular signaling plays a very critical role in inducing virus reactivation based on the following reasons: first, viruses are non-living things; and second, stress almost always seems to be a major factor leading to the stimulation of all the virus reactivation processes. Different viruses utilize different IE gene products to drive their replication in response to cellular signaling. The single most common cellular signal that seems to be driving the reactivation of viruses is MAPK in conjunction with the NF-κB pathway, to a lesser extent. Stress, along with various other growth factors (GFs)/inflammatory cytokines, has the propensity to trigger these cascades (Figure 1). There exists a complicated set of interactions between these cellular events, leading up to activating a set of different TFs, ultimately resulting in cell proliferation/differentiation; in other words, cell-cycle progression. As one might recall, virus reactivation is commonly observed in cells that are actively dividing. Thus, the stress-induced MAPK/NF-κB signaling provides apt conditions for virus reactivation by inducing cell-cycle progression. In our earlier studies, we demonstrated that cells in the S phase of the cell cycle provide conditions that promote active DNA replication that is crucial for virus replication [45].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms304451f1.jpg
Major signaling pathways that are involved in virus reactivation

Alternative signaling pathways that involve Ras/Raf/NF-κB as key players in reactivation of different viruses are depicted. The Raf/MEK/ERK pathway of signaling interacts with other signal transduction pathways, leading to the activation of a variety of transcription factors that are critical for the transcription of specific cellular genes and in inducing viral reactivation. Signaling molecules that are boxed in blue are critical upstream components in the divergent MAPK and NF-κB signaling pathways. These molecules can be activated by one or more of the ligands listed above.

Since many viruses target signaling pathways that regulate responses such as mitosis, apoptosis, motility, proliferation and differentiation, they have a means to manipulate cellular function, including reactivation and lytic replication [101]. With valid consideration of MAPK/NF-κB as a unifying theme in all virus reactivation, testing inhibitors and blocking this signaling could be one possible route to reactivation inhibition (Table 2). For example, it has been determined that upon inhibition of the p38 MAPK pathway, bacterium-mediated induction of lytic KSHV infection is greatly reduced [102]. More specifically, the effect of dehydroxymethylepoxyquinomicin (DHMEQ), a relatively new NF-κB inhibitor, was examined on primary effusion lymphoma cells, a refractory malignancy that can be caused by both KSHV and EBV infections. NF-κB is constitutively activated in these cells. Interestingly, it was shown that DHMEQ transiently destroys NF-κB activation, irreversibly triggering the apoptosis cascade without reactivating KSHV lytic genes, hence not inducing virus replication. Just as DHMEQ may be a promising candidate for molecular target therapy of the primary effusion lymphoma, further developments of MAPK/NF-κB inhibitors may prove to be effective therapies for other viruses and complications resulting from those viruses [103].

Table 2

Examples of inhibitors of signal transduction pathways currently in clinical trials that have the potential to serve as antiviral agents.

DrugCompany (location)Mode of actionStage of clinical testingRole in virus replication?Ref.
MAPK inhibitors
PLX4032Plexxikon (co-) Roche (WI, USA)Inhibits BRAFPhase II and IIIN/A[130]
E6201Eisai Inc. (MA, USA)Inhibits MEK-1 and MEK kinase-1Phase IN/A[131]
ARRY-142886AstraZeneca (DE, USA) and Array BioPharma Inc. (CO, USA)Inhibits basal and epidermal growth factor-induced ERK1/2Phase IIYes[132,133]
PD-0325901Pfizer (NY, USA)Oral MAPK/ERK kinase inhibitorPhase IIYes[133,134]
SB-681323GlaxoSmithKline (Middlesex, USA)Inhibits p38 MAPKPhase IIN/A[135]
VX 702Vertex Pharmaceuticals (MA, USA)p38 MAPK inhibitorPhase IIN/A[136]
AS601245Enzo Life Sciences (PA, USA)ATP-binding site inhibitor of JNKIn rat and gerbil modelsYes[137,138]
NF-κB inhibitors
BortezomibMillennium Pharmaceuticals (MA, USA)Protease inhibitor that indirectly blocks NF-κBPhase I and IIYes[139143]
CurcuminSabinsa (NJ, USA)NF-κB and tumor inhibitorPhase IIYes[144,145]

N/A: Not applicable.

Conclusion: latency, a ‘double-edged sword’

The majority of the world’s population becomes infected with multiple herpesviruses during childhood, and after clearance of acute infection, viral latency is established in the host and persists for life [104,105]. On one hand, latency is deemed a beneficial symbiotic relationship, but to this notion’s detriment, it is also noted that viral persistence in latent phase is the greatest obstacle for effective antiviral therapy [105,106].

Reactivation from viral latency is associated with an array of human pathologies. Although normally controlled in immunocompetent adults, β-herpesvirus, CMV, can cause severe disease such as hepatitis following reactivation in immunosuppressed hosts [104]. VZV, for example, can reactivate from its latent state to cause shingles/zoster in the elderly [24]. Seemingly, in such cases, maintenance of viral latency would be a godsend. In a 2009 letter, Barton et al. state that a virus that increases the odds that its host will survive to a reproductive age, even if the period of enhanced fitness lasts only months, confers a lifelong benefit and meets the definition of a beneficial symbiont [107]. Also, the perks from latency may provide more than protection from pathogens. For instance, data support the ‘hygiene’ hypothesis, in which prior infection protects against development of allergy [107].

On the flipside, there is an opposing view based on the mechanism of immune evasion and lifelong persistence, in which latency is deemed exclusively pathogenic [107]. It has been suggested that viral miRNAs are a component of the immune evasion repertoire controlling viral latency in the case of herpesviruses, and it is speculated that they are a necessity in the virus lifecycle. As controllers of virus latency, viral miRNAs play an essential role in immune evasion by inhibiting immune surveillance and extending the life of the infected host cell. This is regarded as a hindrance to vaccine development [108].

To date, virus vaccines are completely ineffective during latency; only upon reactivation to lytic phase are current vaccines beneficial treatments. For instance, the key protein target for all the successful α-herpesvirus antivirals available is the virus-encoded DNA-polymerase. For selectivity, other compounds depend on their phosphorylation by the herpesvirus thymidine kinase. However, during latency, the virus does not typically express genes coding for virus proteins, including both DNA-polymerase and thymidine kinase. Likewise, there is no obvious solution of how to destroy herpesvirus DNA concealed in latently infected cells, as latent viruses are unaffected by any of the conventional nucleoside analogs or drugs that rely on viral protein targets. Although vaccination against herpesviruses has been difficult, advancements have been made; in fact, HSV was among the very first infections to be treated successfully using antiviral compounds, proving that a viral disease could be successfully treated in this way [106].

Whether virus latency is considered to be advantageous or disadvantageous, both views aspire to achieve the common goal of improving human health and alleviating human suffering from virus-associated health complications through either maintenance of latency and/or the development of vaccines. In comparison to many other viruses, development of herpesvirus antivirals is at the forefront of current research. The majority of parvovirus cases do not require specific therapy, adenovirus is extensively used as a vector in gene therapy, and although BK and JC polyomaviruses are common [109], they are highly asymptomatic and only pathogenic when reactivated in immunosuppressed individuals [110112].

Future perspective

With regard to future therapies, current inhibitors for pathways such as MAPK/NF-κB are unspecific, as they inhibit activity in both host and infected cells. We propose that a strategy for effective antiviral therapies would be to design specifically regulated inhibitors that do not lower signaling below functional physiological levels. By doing so, we can ensure that the activity of such signaling molecules is not reduced below threshold levels in uninfected or tumor cells. In summary, research providing further understanding of the molecular biology of viruses as well as the specifics of the molecular switch that triggers virus reactivation is warranted in an effort to demystify latency.

Executive summary

  • Virus replication is a complicated process. Viruses may undergo three different phases of replication: lytic, latent and persistent.
  • Not all viruses establish latency upon infection.
  • Viruses belonging to the Herpesviridae, Polyomaviridae, Parvoviridae and Adenoviridae families commonly seem to establish latent infections in target cells.
  • Reactivation is a process by which virus latency is terminated, leading to a lytic phase of replication.
  • The exact mechanism that triggers this switch from latent-to-lytic replication is not known.
  • Both viral and cellular factors play a critical role in virus reactivation.
  • Activation of MAPK, and NF-κB signaling to a lesser extent, seems to be a common theme within cells supporting virus reactivation. Furthermore, specific targeting of these pathways may prove to be advantageous in developing future therapies to treat such virus-associated disease conditions.
  • Whether virus reactivation is considered to be advantageous or disadvantageous, knowledge of the trigger(s) that initiates such an event is viewed as getting one step closer to improving human health and alleviating human suffering from virus-associated health complications.

Footnotes

For reprint orders, please contact: moc.enicidemerutuf@stnirper

Financial & competing interests disclosure

Some of the results discussed in this review were an outcome of research supported, in whole or in part, by NIH, NIBIB, Grants R21EB006483 (to SM Akula) and 5F31CA132560–02 (to OF Dyson). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Bibliography

Papers of special note have been highlighted as:

▪ of interest

▪▪ of considerable interest

1. Cook SD, Paveloff MJ, Doucet JJ, Cottingham AJ, Sedarati F, Hill JM. Ocular herpes simplex virus reactivation in mice latently infected with latency-associated transcript mutants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32:1558–1561. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Margolis TP, Elfman FL, Leib D, et al. Spontaneous reactivation of herpes simplex virus type 1 in latently infected murine sensory ganglia. J Virol. 2007;81:11069–11074. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Renne R, Lagunoff M, Zhong W, Ganem D. The size and conformation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (human herpesvirus 8) DNA in infected cells and virions. J Virol. 1996;70:8151–8154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Jordan A, Bisgrove D, Verdin E. HIV reproducibly establishes a latent infection after acute infection of T cells in vitro. EMBO J. 2003;22:1868–1877. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Schroder AR, Shinn P, Chen H, Berry C, Ecker JR, Bushman F. HIV-1 integration in the human genome favors active genes and local hotspots. Cell. 2002;110:521–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Finzi D, Blankson J, Siliciano JD, et al. Latent infection of CD4+ T cells provides a mechanism for lifelong persistence of HIV-1, even in patients on effective combination therapy. Nat Med. 1999;5:512–517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7▪▪. Shuda M, Feng H, Kwun HJ, et al. T antigen mutations are a human tumor-specific signature for Merkel cell polyomavirus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:16272–16277. This group, headed by Moore and Chang, are credited with the discovery of Merkel cell polyomavirus. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Gjoerup O, Chang Y. Update on human polyomaviruses and cancer. Adv Cancer Res. 2010;106:1–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Morissette G, Flamand L. Herpesviruses and chromosomal integration. J Virol. 2010;84:12100–12109. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Clark DA, Nacheva EP, Leong HN, et al. Transmission of integrated human herpesvirus 6 through stem cell transplantation. implications for laboratory diagnosis. J Infect Dis. 2006;193:912–916. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Tal-Singer R, Lasner TM, Podrzucki W, et al. Gene expression during reactivation of herpes simplex virus type 1 from latency in the peripheral nervous system is different from that during lytic infection of tissue cultures. J Virol. 1997;71:5268–5276. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Bloom DC, Giordani NV, Kwiatkowski DL. Epigenetic regulation of latent HSV-1 gene expression. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1799:246–256. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Mador N, Panet A, Steiner I. The latency-associated gene of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) interferes with superinfection by HSV-1. J Neurovirol. 2002;8(Suppl 2):97–02. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Ahmed M, Lock M, Miller CG, Fraser NW. Regions of the herpes simplex virus type 1 latency-associated transcript that protect cells from apoptosis in vitro and protect neuronal cells in vivo. J Virol. 2002;76:717–729. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Perng GC, Maguen B, Jin L, et al. A gene capable of blocking apoptosis can substitute for the herpes simplex virus type 1 latency-associated transcript gene and restore wild-type reactivation levels. J Virol. 2002;76:1224–1235. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Devi-Rao GB, Bloom DC, Stevens JG, Wagner EK. Herpes simplex virus type 1 DNA replication and gene expression during explant-induced reactivation of latently infected murine sensory ganglia. J Virol. 1994;68:1271–1282. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Garber DA, Schaffer PA, Knipe DM. A LAT-associated function reduces productive-cycle gene expression during acute infection of murine sensory neurons with herpes simplex virus type 1. J Virol. 1997;71:5885–5893. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Jones C. Herpes simplex virus type 1 and bovine herpesvirus 1 latency. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003;16:79–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Halford WP, Kemp CD, Isler JA, Davido DJ, Schaffer PA. ICP0, ICP4, or VP16 expressed from adenovirus vectors induces reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus type 1 in primary cultures of latently infected trigeminal ganglion cells. J Virol. 2001;75:6143–6153. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Loiacono CM, Taus NS, Mitchell WJ. The herpes simplex virus type 1 ICP0 promoter is activated by viral reactivation stimuli in trigeminal ganglia neurons of transgenic mice. J Neurovirol. 2003;9:336–345. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Thompson RL, Sawtell NM. Evidence that the herpes simplex virus type 1 ICP0 protein does not initiate reactivation from latency in vivo. J Virol. 2006;80:10919–10930. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Miller CS, Danaher RJ, Jacob RJ. ICP0 is not required for efficient stress-induced reactivation of herpes simplex virus type 1 from cultured quiescently infected neuronal cells. J Virol. 2006;80:3360–3368. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Zhu XX, Chen JX, Young CS, Silverstein S. Reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus by adenovirus recombinants encoding mutant IE-0 gene products. J Virol. 1990;64:4489–4498. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Weaver BA. Herpes zoster overview. natural history and incidence. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2009;109:S2–S6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Donahue JG, Choo PW, Manson JE, Platt R. The incidence of herpes zoster. Arch Intern Med. 2009;155:1605–1609. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Gilden DH, Cohrs R, Mahalingam R. Clinical and molecular pathogenesis of varicella virus infection. Viral Immunol. 2003;16:243–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Gilden D, Nagel MA, Mahalingam R, et al. Clinical and molecular aspects of varicella zoster virus infection. Future Neurol. 2009;4:103–117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Amon W, Farrell PJ. Reactivation of Epstein–Barr virus from latency. Rev Med Virol. 2005;15:149–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Young LS, Rickinson AB. Epstein–Barr virus. 40 years on. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:757–768. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Heather J, Flower K, Isaac S, Sinclair AJ. The Epstein–Barr virus lytic cycle activator Zta interacts with methylated ZRE in the promoter of host target gene egr1. J Gen Virol. 2009;90:1450–1454. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Hong GK, Gulley ML, Feng WH, Delecluse HJ, Holley-Guthrie E, Kenney SC. Epstein–Barr virus lytic infection contributes to lymphoproliferative disease in a SCID mouse model. J Virol. 2005;79:13993–14003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Mendelson M, Monard S, Sissons P, Sinclair J. Detection of endogenous human cytomegalovirus in CD34+ bone marrow progenitors. J Gen Virol. 1996;77(Pt 12):3099–3102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33▪. Reeves MB, MacAry PA, Lehner PJ, Sissons JG, Sinclair JH. Latency, chromatin remodeling, and reactivation of human cytomegalovirus in the dendritic cells of healthy carriers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:4140–4145. Presents a succinct model of how differentiation of cells results in induction of virus lytic replication. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Sinclair J. Human cytomegalovirus: latency and reactivation in the myeloid lineage. J Clin Virol. 2008;41:180–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Chan YJ, Chiou CJ, Huang Q, Hayward GS. Synergistic interactions between overlapping binding sites for the serum response factor and ELK-1 proteins mediate both basal enhancement and phorbol ester responsiveness of primate cytomegalovirus major immediate-early promoters in monocyte and T-lymphocyte cell types. J Virol. 1996;70:8590–8605. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Abdel Massih RC, Razonable RR. Human herpesvirus 6 infections after liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:2561–2569. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Kondo K. Human herpesvirus latency and fatigue. Uirusu. 2005;55:9–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Caselli E, Di Luca D. Molecular biology and clinical associations of Roseoloviruses human herpesvirus 6 and human herpesvirus 7. New Microbiol. 2007;30:173–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Papanikolaou E, Kouvatsis V, Dimitriadis G, Inoue N, Arsenakis M. Identification and characterization of the gene products of open reading frame U86/87 of human herpesvirus 6. Virus Res. 2002;89:89–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Lu C, Zeng Y, Huang Z, et al. Human herpesvirus 6 activates lytic cycle replication of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. Am J Pathol. 2005;166:173–183. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Boutolleau D, Fernandez C, Andre E, et al. Human herpesvirus (HHV)-6 and HHV-7: two closely related viruses with different infection profiles in stem cell transplantation recipients. J Infect Dis. 2003;187:179–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Neipel F, Albrecht JC, Fleckenstein B. Human herpesvirus 8 – the first human Rhadinovirus. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1998;23:73–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43▪▪. Sun R, Lin SF, Gradoville L, Yuan Y, Zhu F, Miller G. A viral gene that activates lytic cycle expression of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:10866–10871. Pioneering work that described the function of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus Rta in inducing virus reactivation. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Liao W, Tang Y, Lin SF, Kung HJ, Giam CZ. K-bZIP of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus/human herpesvirus 8 (KSHV/HHV-8) binds KSHV/HHV-8 Rta and represses Rta-mediated transactivation. J Virol. 2003;77:3809–3815. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Bryan BA, Dyson OF, Akula SM. Identifying cellular genes crucial for the reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus latency. J Gen Virol. 2006;87:519–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Vieira J, O’Hearn P, Kimball L, Chandran B, Corey L. Activation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (human herpesvirus 8) lytic replication by human cytomegalovirus. J Virol. 2001;75:1378–1386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Randhawa P, Zygmunt D, Shapiro R, et al. Viral regulatory region sequence variations in kidney tissue obtained from patients with BK virus nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2003;64:743–747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Mishra L, Rose JA. Adeno-associated virus DNA replication is induced by genes that are essential for HSV-1 DNA synthesis. Virology. 1990;179:632–639. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Hill JM, Lukiw WJ, Gebhardt BM, et al. Gene expression analyzed by microarrays in HSV-1 latent mouse trigeminal ganglion following heat stress. Virus Genes. 2001;23:273–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Higaki S, Gebhardt BM, Lukiw WJ, Thompson HW, Hill JM. Effect of immunosuppression on gene expression in the HSV-1 latently infected mouse trigeminal ganglion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1862–1869. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Bouchard C, Thieke K, Maier A, et al. Direct induction of cyclin D2 by Myc contributes to cell cycle progression and sequestration of p27. EMBO J. 1999;18:5321–5333. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Padar A, Sathyanarayana UG, Suzuki M, et al. Inactivation of cyclin D2 gene in prostate cancers by aberrant promoter methylation. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:4730–4734. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Naray-Fejes-Toth A, Fejes-Toth G, Volk KA, Stokes JB. SGK is a primary glucocorticoid-induced gene in the human. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2000;75:51–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Schang LM, Rosenberg A, Schaffer PA. Transcription of herpes simplex virus immediate-early and early genes is inhibited by roscovitine, an inhibitor specific for cellular cyclin-dependent kinases. J Virol. 1999;73:2161–2172. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Schang LM, Bantly A, Schaffer PA. Explant-induced reactivation of herpes simplex virus occurs in neurons expressing nuclear CDK2 and CDK4. J Virol. 2002;76:7724–7735. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Camarena V, Kobayashi M, Kim JY, et al. Nature and duration of growth factor signaling through receptor tyrosine kinases regulates HSV-1 latency in neurons. Cell Host Microbe. 2010;8:320–333. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Kalamvoki M, Roizman B. ICP0 enables and monitors the function of D cyclins in herpes simplex virus 1 infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:14576–14580. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Rahaus M, Desloges N, Wolff MH. Varicella-zoster virus influences the activities of components and targets of the ERK signalling pathway. J Gen Virol. 2006;87:749–758. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Chang Y, Lee HH, Chen YT, et al. Induction of the early growth response 1 gene by Epstein–Barr virus lytic transactivator Zta. J Virol. 2006;80:7748–7755. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Matusali G, Arena G, De Leo A, Di Renzo L, Mattia E. Inhibition of p38 MAP kinase pathway induces apoptosis and prevents Epstein Barr virus reactivation in Raji cells exposed to lytic cycle inducing compounds. Mol Cancer. 2009;8:18. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Eliopoulos AG, Caamano JH, Flavell J, et al. Epstein–Barr virus-encoded latent infection membrane protein 1 regulates the processing of p100 NF-κB2 to p52 via an IKKγ/NEMO-independent signalling pathway. Oncogene. 2003;22:7557–7569. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Lee YH, Chiu YF, Wang WH, Chang LK, Liu ST. Activation of the ERK signal transduction pathway by Epstein–Barr virus immediate-early protein Rta. J Gen Virol. 2008;89:2437–2446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Ho M. The history of cytomegalovirus and its diseases. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2008;197:65–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Lee Y, Sohn WJ, Kim DS, Kwon HJ. NF-κB- and c-Jun-dependent regulation of human cytomegalovirus immediate-early gene enhancer/promoter in response to lipopolysaccharide and bacterial CpG-oligodeoxynucleotides in macrophage cell line RAW 264.7. Eur J Biochem. 2004;271:1094–1105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Benedict CA, Angulo A, Patterson G, et al. Neutrality of the canonical NF-κB-dependent pathway for human and murine cytomegalovirus transcription and replication in vitro. J Virol. 2004;78:741–750. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Hummel M, Abecassis MM. A model for reactivation of CMV from latency. J Clin Virol. 2002;25(Suppl 2):S123–S136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Wright E, Bain M, Teague L, Murphy J, Sinclair J. Ets-2 repressor factor recruits histone deacetylase to silence human cytomegalovirus immediate-early gene expression in non-permissive cells. J Gen Virol. 2005;86:535–544. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Eberharter A, Becker PB. Histone acetylation: a switch between repressive and permissive chromatin. Second in review series on chromatin dynamics. EMBO Rep. 2002;3:224–229. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Kubat NJ, Tran RK, McAnany P, Bloom DC. Specific histone tail modification and not DNA methylation is a determinant of herpes simplex virus type 1 latent gene expression. J Virol. 2004;78:1139–1149. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Mlechkovich G, Frenkel N. Human herpesvirus 6A (HHV-6A) and HHV-6B alter E2F1/Rb pathways and E2F1 localization and cause cell cycle arrest in infected T cells. J Virol. 2007;81:13499–13508. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature. 2000;408:307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Oster B, Kofod-Olsen E, Bundgaard B, Hollsberg P. Restriction of human herpesvirus 6B replication by p53. J Gen Virol. 2008;89:1106–1113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Black JB, Pellett PE. Human herpesvirus 7. Rev Med Virol. 1999;9:245–262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Frenkel N, Wyatt LS. HHV-6 and HHV-7 as exogenous agents in human lymphocytes. Dev Biol Stand. 1992;76:259–265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Katsafanas GC, Schirmer EC, Wyatt LS, Frenkel N. In vitro activation of human herpesviruses 6 and 7 from latency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:9788–9792. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. McAllister SC, Hansen SG, Messaoudi I, Nikolich-Zugich J, Moses AV. Increased efficiency of phorbol ester-induced lytic reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus during S phase. J Virol. 2005;79:2626–2630. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Cohen A, Brodie C, Sarid R. An essential role of ERK signalling in TPA-induced reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. J Gen Virol. 2006;87:795–802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78▪. Ford PW, Bryan BA, Dyson OF, Weidner DA, Chintalgattu V, Akula SM. Raf/MEK/ERK signalling triggers reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus latency. J Gen Virol. 2006;87:1139–1144. One of the earlier works that describes a role for MAPK signaling in triggering Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus reactivation. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Yu F, Harada JN, Brown H, et al. Systematic identification of cellular signals reactivating Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. PLoS Pathog. 2007;3:E44. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Xie J, Ajibade AO, Ye F, Kuhne K, Gao SJ. Reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus from latency requires MEK/ERK, JNK and p38 multiple mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. Virology. 2008;371:139–154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Grossmann C, Ganem D. Effects of NFκB activation on KSHV latency and lytic reactivation are complex and context-dependent. Virology. 2008;375:94–102. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Ye FC, Zhou FC, Xie JP, et al. Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus latent gene vFLIP inhibits viral lytic replication through NF-κB-mediated suppression of the AP-1 pathway: a novel mechanism of virus control of latency. J Virol. 2008;82:4235–4249. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Sun R, Lin SF, Staskus K, et al. Kinetics of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus gene expression. J Virol. 1999;73:2232–2242. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Bottero V, Sharma-Walia N, Kerur N, et al. Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpes virus (KSHV) G protein-coupled receptor (vGPCR) activates the ORF50 lytic switch promoter: a potential positive feedback loop for sustained ORF50 gene expression. Virology. 2009;392:34–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Harrison SM, Whitehouse A. Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) Rta and cellular HMGB1 proteins synergistically transactivate the KSHV ORF50 promoter. FEBS Lett. 2008;582:3080–3084. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Li Q, Zhou F, Ye F, Gao SJ. Genetic disruption of KSHV major latent nuclear antigen LANA enhances viral lytic transcriptional program. Virology. 2008;379:234–244. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Pan H, Xie J, Ye F, Gao SJ. Modulation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection and replication by MEK/ERK, JNK, and p38 multiple mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways during primary infection. J Virol. 2006;80:5371–5382. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Wang SE, Wu FY, Chen H, et al. Early activation of the Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus RTA, RAP, and MTA promoters by the tetradecanoyl phorbol acetate-induced AP1 pathway. J Virol. 2004;78:4248–4267. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Wilson SJ, Tsao EH, Webb BL, et al. X box binding protein XBP-1s transactivates the Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) ORF50 promoter, linking plasma cell differentiation to KSHV reactivation from latency. J Virol. 2007;81:13578–13586. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90▪▪. Dyson OF, Traylen CM, Akula SM. Cell membrane bound KSHV encoded gB promotes virus latency by regulating expression of cellular Egr-1. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(48):37491–37502. Pioneering work that describes a role for virus-encoded glycoprotein (otherwise expressed on the envelope) in regulating latency. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Kojaoghlanian T, Flomenberg P, Horwitz MS. The impact of adenovirus infection on the immunocompromised host. Rev Med Virol. 2003;13:155–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Horwitz MS. Adenovirus immunoregulatory genes and their cellular targets. Virology. 2001;279:1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Hayashi S. Latent adenovirus infection in COPD. Chest. 2002;121:183S–187S. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Tauber B, Dobner T. Molecular regulation and biological function of adenovirus early genes: the E4 ORFs. Gene. 2001;278:1–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Tollefson AE, Scaria A, Hermiston TW, Ryerse JS, Wold LJ, Wold WS. The adenovirus death protein (E3–11.6K) is required at very late stages of infection for efficient cell lysis and release of adenovirus from infected cells. J Virol. 1996;70:2296–2306. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Jordan JA, Manley K, Dugan AS, O’Hara BA, Atwood WJ. Transcriptional regulation of BK virus by nuclear factor of activated T cells. J Virol. 2010;84:1722–1730. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Gorrill TS, Khalili K. Cooperative interaction of p65 and C/EBPβ modulates transcription of BKV early promoter. Virology. 2005;335:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Manley K, O’Hara BA, Gee GV, Simkevich CP, Sedivy JM, Atwood WJ. NFAT4 is required for JC virus infection of glial cells. J Virol. 2006;80:12079–12085. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Gorrill T, Feliciano M, Mukerjee R, Sawaya BE, Khalili K, White MK. Activation of early gene transcription in polyomavirus BK by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Tat. J Gen Virol. 2006;87:1557–1566. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Duechting A, Tschope C, Kaiser H, et al. Human parvovirus B19 NS1 protein modulates inflammatory signaling by activation of STAT3/PIAS3 in human endothelial cells. J Virol. 2008;82:7942–7952. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Lambert PJ, Shahrier AZ, Whitman AG, et al. Targeting the PI3K and MAPK pathways to treat Kaposi’s-sarcoma-associated herpes virus infection and pathogenesis. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2007;11:589–599. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Morris TL, Arnold RR, Webster-Cyriaque J. Signaling cascades triggered by bacterial metabolic end products during reactivation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. J Virol. 2007;81:6032–6042. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Dabaghmanesh N, Matsubara A, Miyake A, et al. Transient inhibition of NF-κB by DHMEQ induces cell death of primary effusion lymphoma without HHV-8 reactivation. Cancer Sci. 2009;100:737–746. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104. Yager EJ, Szaba FM, Kummer LW, et al. γ-Herpesvirus-induced protection against bacterial infection is transient. Viral Immunol. 2009;22:67–72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. Barton ES, White DW, Virgin HW. Herpesvirus latency and symbiotic protection from bacterial infection. Viral Immunol. 2009;22:3–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Field HJ, Biswas S, Mohammad IT. Herpesvirus latency and therapy – from a veterinary perspective. Antiviral Res. 2006;71:127–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Barton ES, White DW, Cathelyn JS, et al. Herpesvirus latency confers symbiotic protection from bacterial infection. Nature. 2007;447:326–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Boss IW, Renne R. Viral miRNAs: tools for immune evasion. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010;13(4):540–545. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Gofton TE, Al-Khotani A, O’Farrell B, Ang LC, McLachlan RS. Mefloquine in the treatment of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;82(4):452–455. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. Chakrabarty A, Beutner K. Therapy of other viral infections: herpes to hepatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17:465–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111. Lai CM, Lai YK, Rakoczy PE. Adenovirus and adeno-associated virus vectors. DNA Cell Biol. 2002;21:895–913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Viscidi RP, Shah KV. Cancer. A skin cancer virus? Science. 2008;319:1049–1050. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Lafferty WE, Downey L, Celum C, Wald A. Herpes simplex virus type 1 as a cause of genital herpes: impact on surveillance and prevention. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:1454–1457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Chayavichitsilp P, Buckwalter JV, Krakowski AC, Friedlander SF. Herpes simplex. Pediatr Rev. 2009;30:119–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Azwa A, Barton SE. Aspects of herpes simplex virus: a clinical review. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009;35:237–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Steiner I, Kennedy PG, Pachner AR. The neurotropic herpes viruses: herpes simplex and varicella-zoster. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:1015–1028. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117. Lassoued S, Gargouri B, El Feki AE, Attia H, Van Pelt J. Transcription of the Epstein–Barr virus lytic cycle activator BZLF-1 during oxidative stress induction. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2009;137(1):13–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Lockey TD, Zhan X, Surman S, Sample CE, Hurwitz JL. Epstein–Barr virus vaccine development: a lytic and latent protein cocktail. Front Biosci. 2008;13:5916–5927. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Sinclair E, Tan QX, Sharp M, et al. Protective immunity to cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis in AIDS is associated with CMV-specific T cells that express interferon-γ and interleukin-2 and have a CD8+ cell early maturational phenotype. J Infect Dis. 2006;194:1537–1546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Cheng J, Ke Q, Jin Z, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection causes an increase of arterial blood pressure. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5:E1000427. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Yamanishi K, Okuno T, Shiraki K, et al. Identification of human herpesvirus-6 as a causal agent for exanthem subitum. Lancet. 1988;1:1065–1067. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. Tanaka K, Kondo T, Torigoe S, Okada S, Mukai T, Yamanishi K. Human herpesvirus 7: another causal agent for roseola (exanthem subitum) J Pediatr. 1994;125:1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Hamden KE, Whitman AG, Ford PW, Shelton JG, McCubrey JA, Akula SM. Raf and VEGF: emerging therapeutic targets in Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection and angiogenesis in hematopoietic and nonhematopoietic tumors. Leukemia. 2005;19:18–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Pantry SN, Medveczky PG. Epigenetic regulation of Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus replication. Semin Cancer Biol. 2009;19:153–157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Abend JR, Jiang M, Imperiale MJ. BK virus and human cancer: innocent until proven guilty. Semin Cancer Biol. 2009;19:252–260. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Compston LI, Sarkobie F, Li C, Candotti D, Opare-Sem O, Allain JP. Multiplex real-time PCR for the detection and quantification of latent and persistent viral genomes in cellular or plasma blood fractions. J Virol Methods. 2008;151:47–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Michelfelder S, Trepel M. Adeno-associated viral vectors and their redirection to cell-type specific receptors. Adv Genet. 2009;67:29–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Ljungman P. Treatment of adenovirus infections in the immunocompromised host. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23:583–588. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129. Walls T, Shankar AG, Shingadia D. Adenovirus: an increasingly important pathogen in paediatric bone marrow transplant patients. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003;3:79–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Yang H, Higgins B, Kolinsky K, et al. RG7204 (PLX4032), a selective BRAFV600E inhibitor, displays potent antitumor activity in preclinical melanoma models. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5518–5527. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Muramoto K, Goto M, Inoue Y, et al. E6201, a Novel Kinase Inhibitor of MEK-1 and MEKK-1: in vivo effects on cutaneous inflammatory responses by topical administration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010;335(1):23–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Denton CL, Gustafson DL. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in tumor-bearing nude mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;67(2):349–360. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
133. Hsieh HP, Hsu JT. Strategies of development of antiviral agents directed against influenza virus replication. Curr Pharm Des. 2007;13:3531–3542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134. LoRusso PM, Krishnamurthi SS, Rinehart JJ, et al. Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral MAPK/ERK kinase inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with advanced cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1924–1937. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135. Singh D, Smyth L, Borrill Z, Sweeney L, Tal-Singer R. A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of the p38 MAPK inhibitor SB-681323 on blood biomarkers of inflammation in COPD patients. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50:94–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
136. Damjanov N, Kauffman RS, Spencer-Green GT. Efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of VX-702, a novel p38 MAPK inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:1232–1241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
137. Haeusgen W, Boehm R, Zhao Y, Herdegen T, Waetzig V. Specific activities of individual c-Jun N-terminal kinases in the brain. Neuroscience. 2009;161:951–959. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138. Bogoyevitch MA, Arthur PG. Inhibitors of c-Jun N-terminal kinases: JuNK no more? Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1784:76–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
139. Su Y, Amiri KI, Horton LW, et al. A Phase I trial of bortezomib with temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma: toxicities, antitumor effects, and modulation of therapeutic targets. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:348–357. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
140. Chung CH, Aulino J, Muldowney NJ, et al. Nuclear factor-κ B pathway and response in a phase II trial of bortezomib and docetaxel in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:864–870. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
141. Sarosiek KA, Cavallin LE, Bhatt S, et al. Efficacy of bortezomib in a direct xenograft model of primary effusion lymphoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:13069–13074. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
142. Bandi P, Garcia ML, Booth CJ, Chisari FV, Robek MD. Bortezomib inhibits hepatitis B virus replication in transgenic mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:749–756. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
143. Fu DX, Tanhehco Y, Chen J, et al. Bortezomib-induced enzyme-targeted radiation therapy in herpesvirus-associated tumors. Nat Med. 2008;14:1118–1122. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
144. Dhillon N, Aggarwal BB, Newman RA, et al. Phase II trial of curcumin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:4491–4499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
145. Rechtman MM, Har-Noy O, Bar-Yishay I, et al. Curcumin inhibits hepatitis B virus via down-regulation of the metabolic coactivator PGC-1α FEBS Lett. 2010;584:2485–2490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]