
==== Front
J Virol
J Virol
jvi
Journal of Virology
0022-538X
1098-5514
American Society for Microbiology 1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC

39194246
jvi00826-24
10.1128/jvi.00826-24
jvi.00826-24
Genome Replication and Regulation of Viral Gene Expression
virologyVirologyHuman papillomavirus 16 replication converts SAMHD1 into a homologous recombination factor and promotes its recruitment to replicating viral DNA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6816-1607
James Claire D. 1 Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing cdjames@vcu.edu

Youssef Aya 1 Data curation Formal analysis Methodology
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2266-7247
Prabhakar Apurva T. 1 Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review and editing
Otoa Raymonde 1 Data curation Methodology
Roe Jenny D. 1 Data curation Methodology
Witt Austin 1 Data curation Methodology
Lewis Rachel L. 1 Data curation Methodology
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4259-8528
Bristol Molly L. 1 2 Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Writing – review and editing
Wang Xu 1 Data curation Formal analysis Methodology
Zhang Kun 1 Methodology
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9226-4470
Li Renfeng 3 4 Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review and editing
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4949-3032
Morgan Iain M. 1 2 Conceptualization Funding acquisition Investigation Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing immorgan@vcu.edu

1 Philips Institute for Oral Health Research, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) , Richmond, Virginia, USA
2 VCU Massey Cancer Center , Richmond, Virginia, USA
3 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
4 Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Editor Banks Lawrence International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology , Trieste, Italy

Address correspondence to Claire D. James, cdjames@vcu.edu
Address correspondence to Iain M. Morgan, immorgan@vcu.edu
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

9 2024
28 8 2024
28 8 2024
98 9 e00826-2415 5 2024
24 7 2024
Copyright © 2024 James et al.
2024
James et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

ABSTRACT

We have demonstrated that SAMHD1 (sterile alpha motif and histidine-aspartic domain HD-containing protein 1) is a restriction factor for the human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) life cycle. Here, we demonstrate that in HPV-negative cervical cancer C33a cells and human foreskin keratinocytes immortalized by HPV16 (HFK+HPV16), SAMHD1 is recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA. Homologous recombination (HR) factors are required for HPV16 replication, and viral replication promotes phosphorylation of SAMHD1, which converts it from a dNTPase to an HR factor independent from E6/E7 expression. A SAMHD1 phospho-mimic (SAMHD1 T592D) reduces E1-E2-mediated DNA replication in C33a cells and has enhanced recruitment to the replicating DNA. In HFK+HPV16 cells, SAMHD1 T592D is recruited to the viral DNA and attenuates cellular growth, but does not attenuate growth in isogenic HFK cells immortalized by E6/E7 alone. SAMHD1 T592D also attenuates the development of viral replication foci following keratinocyte differentiation. The results indicated that enhanced SAMHD1 phosphorylation could be therapeutically beneficial in cells with HPV16 replicating genomes. Protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) can dephosphorylate SAMHD1, and PP2A function can be inhibited by endothall. We demonstrate that endothall reduces E1-E2 replication and promotes SAMHD1 recruitment to E1-E2 replicating DNA, mimicking the SAMHD1 T592D phenotypes. Finally, we demonstrate that in head and neck cancer cell lines with HPV16 episomal genomes, endothall attenuates their growth and promotes recruitment of SAMHD1 to the viral genome. The results suggest that targeting cellular phosphatases has therapeutic potential for the treatment of HPV infections and cancers.

IMPORTANCE

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are causative agents in around 5% of all human cancers. The development of anti-viral therapeutics depends upon an increased understanding of the viral life cycle. Here, we demonstrate that HPV16 replication converts sterile alpha motif and histidine-aspartic domain HD-containing protein 1 (SAMHD1) into a homologous recombination (HR) factor via phosphorylation. This phosphorylation promotes recruitment of SAMHD1 to viral DNA to assist with replication. A SAMHD1 mutant that mimics phosphorylation is hyper-recruited to viral DNA and attenuates viral replication. Expression of this mutant in HPV16-immortalized cells attenuates the growth of these cells, but not cells immortalized by the viral oncogenes E6/E7 alone. Finally, we demonstrate that the phosphatase inhibitor endothall promotes hyper-recruitment of endogenous SAMHD1 to HPV16 replicating DNA and can attenuate the growth of both HPV16-immortalized human foreskin keratinocytes (HFKs) and HPV16-positive head and neck cancer cell lines. We propose that phosphatase inhibitors represent a novel tool for combating HPV infections and disease.

KEYWORDS

human papillomavirus
replication
life cycle
SAMHD1
cervical cancer
head and neck cancer
therapy
homologous recombination
phosphorylation
HHS | NIH | National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) R01DE029471 Morgan Iain M. HHS | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) R01AI141410 Li Renfeng American Cancer Society (ACS) 134703-RSG-20-054-01-MPC, IRG-14-192-40 Li Renfeng HHS | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) R21AI178143 Morgan Iain M. cover-dateSeptember 2024
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) infect epithelial cells and cause around 5% of all cancers (1). During the viral life cycle, the virus exists as an 8-kbp double-stranded DNA episome replicated by two viral factors, E1 and E2, in association with host factors (2–6). The process of viral replication activates the DNA damage response (DDR) and recruits a host of DNA repair factors to the viral DNA, including TopBP1, SIRT1, and WRN (7–15). Activation of the DDR is critical for the HPV life cycle, as is recruitment and interaction with host DNA repair factors, particularly those involved in homologous recombination (HR) (12, 13, 16–21). It is proposed that the recruitment of host DDR factors to the viral genome promotes homologous recombination-mediated DNA replication during the viral life cycle (22). Our understanding of the host factors involved in promoting HR-mediated replication of HPV genomes remains incomplete, and identification of such factors will potentially facilitate the identification of novel therapeutic approaches for disrupting viral replication and treating HPV-related diseases.

Sterile alpha motif and histidine-aspartic domain HD-containing protein 1 (SAMHD1) regulates intracellular levels of dNTPs using triphosphohydrolase (dNTPase) enzyme activity (23). dNTPase function depends upon formation of a homo-tetramer, and each SAMHD1 molecule consists of a sterile alpha motif (SAM) that can interact with other SAM domains, and a dGTP-regulated dNTP hydrolase domain (HD) that regulates the dNTP levels in cells (24–26). SAMHD1 can act as a restriction factor for several viruses, including HIV (27–29). SAMHD1 can also modulate cytomegalovirus infection by controlling NF-kB activity (30). Viruses can also counteract SAMHD1 function: HIV-2 Vpx promotes proteasomal degradation of SAMHD1 (31); conserved herpesvirus protein kinases can antagonize SAMHD1 restriction via phosphorylation (32). For HPV16, deletion of SAMHD1 expression using CRISPR targeting generated several phenotypes, including increased cellular proliferation, increased DNA damage, and increase viral genome amplification (33). These phenotypes indicate that SAMHD1 also acts as a restriction factor for HPV16. However, the mechanism of how SAMHD1 acts as an HPV16 restriction factor remained unresolved.

The phosphorylation of SAMHD1 on threonine 592 (T592) by CDK1 or CDK2 converts SAMHD1 into a homologous recombination factor promoting the recruitment of MRE11 to sites of damaged DNA for end resection (34, 35). The binding to DNA for end resection is promoted by deacetylation of SAMHD1 by SIRT1, a class III deacetylase (36). SIRT1 can deacetylate HPV16 E2 to promote stability and boost E2 replication function (8). The phosphorylation of SAMHD1 has been proposed to reduce dNTPase activity as it destabilizes SAMHD1 homo-tetramerization (23), although others have suggested that the dNTPase activity is not affected by phosphorylation (28). Mechanistically, if phosphorylation did disrupt the dNTPase activity and promote the HR function of SAMHD1 to repair DNA, it would both boost HR as well as increase the nucleotide pool available for DNA replication/repair.

Given the role of HR in the HPV16 life cycle and the recruitment of HR factors to the viral genome to promote viral replication, this report investigated the mechanistic role of SAMHD1 in the HPV16 life cycle. The results demonstrate that SAMHD1 is recruited to HPV16 E1-E2 replicating DNA, both in C33a viral replication models and in human foreskin keratinocytes immortalized by HPV16 (HFK+HPV16). The full HPV16 genome induces the phosphorylation of SAMHD1 on T592, the viral oncogenes cannot do this, suggesting that viral replication per se contributes to the phosphorylation. A SAMHD1 phospho-mimetic (T592D, where the threonine is mutated to an aspartic acid) is hyper-recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA and results in an attenuation of viral replication levels. In HFK+HPV16 cells, SAMHD1 T592D attenuates the growth of the cells and prevents the formation of viral replication foci that are induced in differentiating HFK+HPV16 cells. The results suggest a model in which increasing SAMHD1 recruitment to viral DNA by increasing phosphorylation disrupts viral replication, along with host replication, and attenuates the growth of HPV16-positive cells. SAMHD1 is dephosphorylated by protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) during mitotic exit (37), and endothall is an inhibitor of PP2A (38). Endothall treatment attenuated E1/E2 replication in C33a cells and enhanced recruitment of SAMHD1, E1, and E2 to the replicating DNA, mimicking the effects of SAMHD1 T592D. HFK+HPV16 treatment with endothall enhanced the recruitment of SAMHD1 and E2 to the viral genomes and attenuated cellular growth as well as inhibited the development of replication foci following differentiation. All of these results mimicked the results generated with SAMHD1 T592D. Strikingly, the effects of endothall and SAMHD1 T592D on cellular growth were dependent upon the presence of the full-length replicating HPV16 genome; endothall had minimal effects on the growth of isogenic cells immortalized by the HPV16 oncogenes E6 and E7. Finally, we demonstrate that the head and neck cancer cell line, SCC-104, which contains episomal HPV16 genomes, is hypersensitive to endothall, and treatment resulted in increased SAMHD1 and E2 recruitment to the replicating HPV16 genomes. Endothall was less toxic to head and neck cancer cell lines with integrated HPV16 genomes (SCC-47) or an HPV-negative head and neck cancer cell line (HN30). We propose that phosphatase inhibitors represent a novel approach for the treatment of HPV16-positive tumors that have replicating HPV16 genomes.

RESULTS

HPV16 replication phosphorylates SAMHD1 to convert it to a homologous recombination factor, and recruits it to E1-E2 replicating DNA

We established that E1-E2 replicating DNA recruits SAMHD1 using our C33a model system (10, 39). SAMHD1 levels were knocked down using an shRNA in the presence of E1 and E2 expression along with a plasmid containing the origin of replication (Fig. 1A, compare lane 4 with lane 3). Knockdown of SAMHD1 did not alter the levels of E1 or E2 protein expression. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) experiments using chromatin prepared from C33a cells transfected with E1-E2-pOri and shRNA Control (Ctrl) or shRNA SAMHD1 demonstrated that the knockdown of SAMHD1 expression (Fig. 1A) resulted in a reduction of SAMHD1 signal (Fig. 1B, compare lane 6 with lane 3, the results are representative of three independent experiments). In the absence of E1 or E2, there was a minimal ChIP signal detected as reported previously (not shown [7, 8, 10, 39–42]). The knockdown of SAMHD1 expression did not significantly alter E1-E2 DNA replication levels in C33a cells (Fig. 1C). In these C33a assays, input DNA is degraded using Dpn1 (which targets 4pb DNA sites methylated in bacteria but not in mammalian cells). This demonstrates that the signals generated come from replicated pOri DNA. Next, we determined that SAMHD1 was recruited to viral genomes in human foreskin keratinocytes immortalized by HPV16 (HFK+HPV16) (Fig. 1E). Chromatin was prepared from two independent donor HFK+HPV16 cell lines (21), and ChIP assays were carried out in triplicate with HA, E2, and SAMHD1 antibodies. The levels of HPV16 long control region (LCR) DNA pulled down were determined relative to input, expressed as percentages, and represent a summary of three independent experiments. The HA antibody pulls down background levels of LCR (lanes 1 and 2) while both E2 (lanes 3 and 4) and SAMHD1 (lanes 5 and 6) pulled down significantly more LCR DNA in both donor lines. The results suggested that SAMHD1 was converted into an HR factor in HFK+HPV16, and this was confirmed by determining the phosphorylation status of SAMHD1 (Fig. 1F). HFKs from two different donors were immortalized by hTERT, the full HPV16 genome (wild-type [WT] HPV16), or E6 and E7 expression via retroviral transduction (E6E7). SAMHD1 levels were similar in all immortalized lines. However, an antibody specific for SAMHD1 phosphorylated on threonine 592 (SAMHD1 p592, middle panel) detected SAMHD1 phosphorylation only in the presence of the entire HPV16 genome (lanes 2 and 5). It is likely that the DDR induced by HPV16 replication drives the phosphorylation of SAMHD1, and this is not due to E6/E7 expression (lanes 3 and 6). Figure 1 demonstrates that E1 and E2 replicating DNA recruits SAMHD1, and that HPV16 full genome converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor.

Fig 1 (A) C33a cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids, and the expression levels of E2, E1 (HA tagged), and SAMHD1 were determined. (B) Chromatin was prepared from the indicated transfected cells, and ChIP assays were carried out to detect the levels of E1 (HA), E2, and SAMHD1 protein recruited to the replicating DNA. There was a significant (*, P < 0.05) reduction in SAMHD1 recruitment when the protein was knocked down, demonstrating that the signal detected is due to SAMHD1 recruitment to the E1-E2 replicating DNA. (C) Quantitative replication assays demonstrate that the knockdown of SAMHD1 does not significantly change E1-E2 DNA replication levels. (D) The E1-E2 replicated DNAs in C were investigated for their fidelity, and removal of SAMHD1 significantly increased the mutational levels as determined by mutations in the lacz gene (42) (*P value < 0.05). (E) Chromatin was prepared from HFK+HPV16 (human foreskin keratinocytes immortalized by HPV16) cells, and the presence of E2 and SAMHD1 on the viral genome was confirmed using ChIP assays. The HA antibody serves as a negative control and represents background levels; both the E2 and SAMHD1 antibodies significantly increased the signal over background. (F) Western blotting of protein extracts from the indicated cell lines demonstrates that SAMHD1 is phosphorylated (pSAMHD1) only in the presence of the full HPV16 genome.

SAMHD1 is in a cellular complex with E1-E2, and a SAMHD1 phospho-mimetic is hyper-recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA, disrupting viral replication

Phosphatases are integral to the control of mammalian DNA replication (43). Figure 1E demonstrates that HPV16 replication converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor via threonine 592 phosphorylation, promoting recruitment to the viral genome. We hypothesized that disrupting dephosphorylation of SAMHD1 may block viral replication by preventing removal of SAMHD1 from the replication complex. To investigate this, we used SAMHD1 T592 mutants (T592D, threonine to aspartic acid mimicking phosphorylation; T592A, threonine to alanine mimicking non-phosphorylation). Figure 2A demonstrates that the expression of wild-type and SAMHD1 mutants did not significantly alter the expression of the viral proteins E1 and E2 (lanes 7–9, input). The HA-IP (middle panel) immunoprecipitates the HA-tagged E1; E1 interacts with endogenous SAMHD1 (lane 3) and the three SAMHD1 proteins that are overexpressed (lanes 7–9). As expected, E1 interacts with E2, and this is not disrupted by the overexpression of any of the SAMHD1 proteins (lanes 5–9). E2 also interacts with endogenous SAMHD1 (bottom panel, lane 4) and the three overexpressed SAMHD1 proteins (lanes 7–9). E2 also interacted with E1 (lanes 5–9), as expected. Replication assays with the overexpressed SAMHD1 proteins demonstrate that SAMHD1 T592D significantly reduced replication (Fig. 2B, lane 5). E1 plasmid DNA levels detected in the cell extracts were not significantly altered by the overexpression of the SAMHD1 proteins, demonstrating that they were not toxic to the transfected cells (Fig. 2B). ChIP assays (Fig. 2C) demonstrated that the expression of SAMHD1 T592D resulted in a significant increase of E1 (HA), E2, and SAMHD1 T592D (V5) recruitment to replicating DNA when compared with the overexpression of SAMHD1 WT or SAMHD1 T592A (lanes 4, 8, and 12). The overexpression of the latter two proteins did not alter the recruitment of E1 or E2 to replicating DNA when compared with no-SAMHD1 overexpression control (pLX304). These results supported our hypothesis that a failure to dephosphorylate SAMHD1 (T592D mimics “permanent” phosphorylation) can block E1-E2-mediated DNA replication by “freezing” the replication complex on the DNA.

Fig 2 (A) C33a cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids, and protein extracts were prepared. Input levels of the proteins under study are shown in the top panels (input). HA (E1) immunoprecipitation demonstrates that E1 can interact with E2 and endogenous SAMHD1 (lanes 3 and 5), as well as with the three co-transfected SAMHD1 expression vector proteins (lanes 7–9). Similarly, E2 can interact with E1, endogenous SAMHD1 (lanes 4 and 5), and the three co-transfected SAMHD1 expression vector proteins (lanes 7–9). The exogenous SAMHD1 is tagged with a V5 epitope. (B) The expression of SAMHD1 T592D significantly (**, P value < 0.05) reduced E1-E2 DNA replication levels in C33a cells (top panel, compare lanes 2 and 5). The bottom panel monitors the levels of E1 plasmid (that is not replicated during the assay), and there is no significant difference in the detection of this DNA between any of the samples that were transfected with the E1 plasmid. This demonstrates that the reduction of replication with SAMHD1 T592D is not due to cellular toxicity of the protein killing the transfected cells. (C) Chromatin was prepared from the transfected cells, and ChIP assays were carried out with V5 (detects the SAMHD1 proteins from the co-transfected plasmids), HA (detects E1), and E2 antibodies. (D) For all proteins, there is a significant (*, P value < 0.05) increase in signal in the presence of SAMHD1 T592D. Please note the log scale in this figure.

To investigate the relevance of the results in Figure 2 to the viral life cycle, SAMHD1 WT and mutants were stably overexpressed in HFK+HPV16 cells using lentiviral delivery and selection. Figure 3A demonstrates the expression of the SAMHD1 proteins from the delivered lentiviruses in HFK+HPV16 (lanes 6–8 and 14, 15) and HFK+E6/E7 (lanes 2–4 and 10–12) in two different foreskin donor lines. ChIP assays targeting the HPV16 LCR were carried out with the HPV16+HFK cells, and the percent of input chromatin pulled down was determined using E2, V5 (to detect the exogenously overexpressed SAMHD1 proteins), and a control HA antibody (Fig. 3B). The results with the HA antibody (lanes 17–24) detected background levels of LCR pulled down. E2 pulled down significantly more LCR DNA than the HA antibody; there was no significant difference in the E2 signal between any of the samples (lanes 1–8). All of the V5-tagged SAMHD1 proteins were recruited to the viral DNA, although there were significant differences between them. SAMHD1 WT was recruited, and the SAMHD1 T592A mutant was significantly less recruited (compare lanes 10 and 14 with 11 and 15, respectively). SAMHD1 T592D was the most recruited to the viral DNA and was significantly more than SAMHD1 WT and SAMHD1 T592A (compare lanes 12 and 16 with 10, 11 and 14, 15). The results support the hypothesis that phosphorylation of SAMHD1 on T592 promotes recruitment of the protein to replicating viral DNA. The viral DNA levels in the cells were not significantly different between all of the samples (not shown); however, cellular growth was attenuated by the overexpression of the SAMHD1 T592D protein (Fig. 3C). In HFK+E6E7, the expression of the SAMHD1 proteins did not alter cell growth; in HFK+HPV16, cell growth was attenuated only by the SAMHD1 T592D. The results in Figure 3 suggest that overrecruitment of SAMHD1 (T592D) to replicating viral DNA attenuates cellular growth. As viral replication induces a DNA damage response, which would convert SAMHD1 into an HR factor, SAMHD1 T592D could attenuate host cell replication and growth due to the active DNA damage response requiring SAMHD1 recruitment to, and disengagement from, host replication sites to manage cell growth.

Fig 3 (A) Western blot demonstrating the expression of exogenous SAMHD1 proteins (detected with V5 antibody) in the indicated cell lines. (B) Chromatin immunoprecipitation assays demonstrate that SAMHD1 T592D had increased recruitment to viral DNA than exogenous wild-type SAMHD1 (P value < 0.05). (C) Growth curve of the indicated cell lines. Exogenous SAMHD1 T592D significantly (*, P value < 0.05) reduced the growth rate in HFK+HPV16 cell lines, but not in HFK+E6E7 cells.

Following differentiation of HFK+HPV16 cells, SAMHD1 T592D blocked the formation of viral replication foci (detected using γ-H2AX, Fig. 4A). Growing, undifferentiated HFK+HPV16 cells had no γ-H2AX foci; HFK+E6E7 cells had no foci irrespective of differentiation status (not shown). The expression of SAMHD1 WT or SAMHD1 T592A had no effect on foci formation (Fig. 4A), and quantitation of foci numbers confirmed only SAMHD1 T592D could block foci formation (Fig. 4B). The quantitation (Fig. 4B) summarizes the data from two independent HFK donor lines; donor 1 is shown in Figure 4A. The expression of the SAMHD1 proteins does not affect differentiation, as involucrin induction was similar in all samples (Fig. 4C). Figure 4D demonstrates that the exogenous levels of SAMHD1 do not change following differentiation, and that SAMHD1 phosphorylation is retained. The phosphorylation signal is enhanced by the exogenous expression of SAMHD1 WT (lanes 2 and 6). To investigate whether the exogenous expression of the SAMHD1 proteins disrupted viral genome integrity, we carried out TV exonuclease (RecBD, NEB) assays combined with real-time PCR, which measure both episomal and integrated DNA levels (21, 44, 45). Figure 4E demonstrates that there is no consistent pattern of the exogenous SAMHD1 proteins changing viral genome levels in two different donor cells; the observed differences are likely due to the time it takes to generate the cell lines from the parent HFK+HPV16 cells. Next, we investigated HPV16 genome levels in the cells expressing exogenous SAMHD1 following differentiation (Fig. 4F). E6 DNA levels were measured, and the strikingly consistent result is that, in the presence of SAMHD1 T592D, there is a highly significant reduction in genome copy number to almost undetectable levels. Finally, we investigated the genome status using TV assays (Fig. 4G). The only significant result was that the presence of SAMHD1 T592D resulted in enhanced viral genome integration. Combined with the reduction in HPV16 genome levels (Fig. 4F), the results suggest that SAMHD1 T592D binds to the viral genome and blocks replication, resulting in genome fragmentation and the integration of some of the broken genomes into that of the host. The levels of episomal genomes observed in these cells are similar to that we have reported previously, where Southern blots also confirmed the presence of episomal genomes (21).

Fig 4 (A) Calcium was added to the indicated cell lines to differentiate them, and cells were fixed 3 days later and were stained for γH2AX as a marker of viral replication foci. Donor 1 is shown, and donor 2 cells behaved in a similar manner. (B) The number of cells with γH2AX foci was quantitated and expressed as a percentage of all cells. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of cells with γH2AX foci in the SAMHD1 T592D samples (*P value < 0.05) when compared with all other samples. (C) RNA was prepared from the differentiated cells, and involucrin levels were determined. The results are expressed relative to no calcium treatment = 1. In all cases, there is a significant increase in involucrin RNA (P value < 0.05), confirming that differentiation has not been affected by the expression of any of the SAMHD1 proteins. (D) Following differentiation, the expression of the exogenous SAMHD1 proteins does not change, and SAMHD1 remains phosphorylated on T592. The exogenous SAMHD1 proteins do not affect differentiation as keratin 10 expression was induced following differentiation irrespective of SAMHD1 expression (compare lanes 5–8 with 1–4). Combined with the involucrin RNA results, we conclude that differentiation is not affected by the exogenous SAMHD1 proteins. (E) The expression of exogenous SAMHD1 proteins did not reproducibly or significantly affect HPV16 genome DNA levels in two independent HFK+HPV16 cell lines. (F) Following differentiation, there is a consistent and significant reduction in HPV16 genome levels in the SAMHD1 T592D expressing HFK+HPV16 cells, P value < 0.05*. There was no consistent change in genome levels with the expression of any of the other exogenous SAMHD1 proteins. (G) To investigate HPV16 genome status (episomal vs integrated), TV exonuclease assays were carried out. The results are expressed relative to mitochondrial DNA (which is episomal) equaling 100%. The only consistent and significant change in HPV16 genome status was observed following differentiation of HFK+HPV16 cells expressing SAMHD1 T592D, where integration levels increased, P value < 0.05*. IVL, involucrin.

The results in Fig.1 to 4 demonstrate that SAMHD1 is recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA, and that a T592D mutant has increased recruitment to the replicating DNA and can disrupt viral replication.

Endothall, a PP2A inhibitor, promotes recruitment of endogenous SAMHD1 to replicating viral DNA

PP2A dephosphorylates SAMHD1 during transition from mitosis (37), and endothall is an inhibitor of PP2A (38). As SAMHD1 T592D (mimicking constant phosphorylation of SAMHD1) disrupts E1-E2-mediated DNA replication and viral genome amplification during mitosis, the ability of endothall to “mimic” SAMHD1 T592D by inducing increased endogenous SAMHD1 phosphorylation was tested. Figure 5A demonstrates that endothall significantly reduces the levels of E1-E2 DNA replication in transient C33a transfection experiments. Endothall did not induce death of the transfected cells as the transfected E1 plasmid levels were the same in the vehicle- and endothall-treated cells (Fig. 5B). Endothall induced increased levels of E2, E1, and endogenous SAMHD1 recruited to the E1-E2 replicating DNA (Fig. 5C). The attenuation of replication and hyper-recruitment to the replicating DNA following endothall treatment is similar to the results generated with SAMHD1 T592D (Fig. 2).

Fig 5 (A) Replication assays were carried out in C33a cells transfected with the indicated plasmids; substantial replication is only detected in the presence of E1 and E2 expression (lanes 7 and 8). Treatment with endothall significantly reduced the replication signal (**, compare lane 8 with lane 7, P value < 0.05). (B) The levels of E1 input plasmid were determined in the control and endothall-treated cells, demonstrating no reduction in E1 levels following drug treatment (lanes 7 and 8). This demonstrates that the combination of transfection and endothall treatment is not killing the transfected cells. (C) Chromatin was prepared from C33a cells transfected with the indicated plasmids, and ChIP assays were carried out with HA (E1), E2, and endogenous SAMHD1 antibodies. The treatment with endothall significantly increased the recruitment of all three proteins to the replicating DNA (*, P value < 0.05).

Endothall promotes recruitment of SAMHD1 to the viral genome in HFK+HPV16 cells, attenuates their growth, and blocks viral replication foci formation during differentiation

As endothall is attenuating E1-E2-mediated DNA replication in C33a cells and promoting recruitment of endogenous SAMHD1 onto the replicating DNA, the ability of endothall to disrupt the growth of HFK+HPV16 and HFK+E6E7 cells from two independent donors was determined. Figure 6A demonstrates that endothall significantly attenuates the growth of HFK+HPV16 cells (left panel). It also attenuates the growth of HFK+E6E7 cells but less than HFK+HPV16 (right panel). Chromatin was prepared from the treated HFK+HPV16 cells, and the interaction of E2 and SAMHD1 with the replicating viral DNA was determined using ChIP assays (Fig. 6B). For E2 and SAMHD1, there was a significant increase in recruitment to the viral DNA with donor 1 (compare lanes 2 to 1 and 6 to 5, respectively). For donor 2, there was a significant increase in SAMHD1 recruitment (compare lane 8 with 7), and although there was an increase in E2 recruitment, it did not reach significance as the P value was greater than 0.05. HA was used as a control antibody (lanes 9–12), and there was significantly less viral DNA pulled down when compared with E2 and SAMHD1, and there was no significant difference in HA signal following endothall treatment. In Figure 6C, we confirmed that the endothall treatment increased SAMHD1 phosphorylation in the two donor HFK+HPV16 cell lines (compare lanes 2 and 4 with 1 and 3), whereas there was a very low SAMHD1 phosphorylation in the HFK+E6E7 cells that was not altered by endothall treatment (lanes 5–8).

Fig 6 (A) The indicated cell lines were treated with endothall (or vector control) over 3 weeks, and cell growth was monitored. In both HFK+HPV16 donors (left-hand panel), there was a significant reduction in cellular growth at most time points tested in the endothall-treated samples (*, P value < 0.05). For HFK+E6E7 cells (right-hand panel), there was only a significant reduction in cell growth at the 21-day time point with endothall treatment (*, P value < 0.05). (B) Chromatin was prepared from both HFK+HPV16 donor lines, and ChIP assays were carried out with E2 and SAMHD1 (HA was used as a negative control). There is a significant increase in SAMHD1 recruitment to the viral DNA in the presence of endothall for both donors (*, P value < 0.05). Donor 1 has a statistically significant increase in recruitment of E2 to the viral genome in the presence of endothall (*, P value < 0.05). In donor 2, there was an increase in E2 recruitment to the viral genome in the presence of endothall, but this did not reach significance. (C) Treatment with endothall increased the phosphorylation of SAMHD1 on T592 (pSAMHD1 signal) in both HFK+HPV16 donor lines, but did not do so in either HFK+E6E7 cell lines.

The addition of endothall prevented replication foci formation following differentiation of HFK+HPV16 cells (Fig. 7A). γH2AX is used as a marker for the viral replication foci, and there are no foci detectable in HFK+E6E7 cells (the top two sets of panels) irrespective of endothall treatment. As expected, in HFK+HPV16, replication foci developed 3 days following the addition of calcium (third panel set down). Endothall blocked the formation of these replication foci (bottom panel set). The results shown are for donor 1 HFK cells, identical results were obtained in both donors, and quantitation is shown in Figure 7B. Treatment with endothall did not affect differentiation, as involucrin induction was similar in all samples (Fig. 7C).

Fig 7 (A) Calcium was added to the indicated cell lines to differentiate them in the presence of endothall or vehicle (Veh), and cells were fixed 3 days later and were stained for γH2AX as a marker of viral replication foci. Donor 1 is shown, and donor 2 cells behaved in a similar manner. (B) The number of cells with γH2AX foci was quantitated and expressed as a percentage of all cells. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of cells with γH2AX foci in the SAMHD1 T592D samples (*, P value < 0.05) when compared with all other samples. (C) RNA was prepared from the differentiated cells, and involucrin levels were determined. The results are expressed relative to no calcium treatment = 1. In all cases, there is a significant increase in involucrin RNA (P value < 0.05), confirming that differentiation has not been affected by endothall treatment.

Endothall preferentially attenuates the growth of an HPV16-positive head and neck cancer cell line with episomal viral genomes

To determine whether the endothall growth attenuation results with HFK+HPV16 (Fig. 6) could be extended to HPV16-positive head and neck cancer cell lines, we treated three cell lines with endothall: HN30, which are HPV negative and p53 wild type; SCC-104, which are HPV16 positive and contain episomal viral genomes; and SCC-47, which are HPV16 positive and contain integrated viral genomes (46). The three cell lines were also treated with cisplatin. The IC50 for the treatments is shown in Figure 8A. All cell lines were equally sensitive to cisplatin, whereas UMSCC104 was statistically more sensitive to endothall than the other two cell lines. Chromatin was prepared from the cells, and the recruitment of SAMHD1 and E2 to the viral genome in UMSCC104 was determined with and without endothall treatment (Fig. 8B). Endothall statistically increased the recruitment of E2 to the viral genome in UMSCC104 (right-hand panel) and increased SAMHD1 recruitment, although it marginally failed to reach statistical significance (left-had panel, P value = 0.0505). The HA antibody was used as a control and resulted in background signals that were not varied by endothall.

Fig 8 (A) The indicated cells were treated with endothall and cisplatin, and the IC50 was determined. All three cell lines were equally sensitive to cisplatin, whereas UMSCC104 (which contains episomal HPV16 genomes) was significantly more sensitive to endothall than the other two lines (*, P value < 0.05). (B) Chromatin was prepared from UMSC104 cells treated with and without endothall, and ChIP assays were carried out for SAMHD1 (left panel) and E2 (right panel). E2 recruitment was significantly increased in the presence of endothall (*, P value < 0.05), and although SAMHD1 recruitment was also increased, it failed to reach significance.

DISCUSSION

HPV activates the DDR to promote the viral life cycle, and inhibition of the DDR can block viral genome amplification (16). One reason the virus activates the DDR is to promote HR replication of the viral genome, allowing amplification in the presence of an active DDR (22). A host of HR factors are recruited to the replicating viral genome and are critical for the viral life cycle (7, 8, 10, 12–14, 19, 47). Here, we demonstrate that viral replication converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor via phosphorylation on threonine 592; the viral oncogenes E6 and E7 are unable to do this. It may not necessarily be viral replication per se that converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor, but rather the expression of the viral helicase E1, a known activator of the DDR when overexpressed (48–50). The role of SAMHD1 in HR is to promote DNA end resection that generates substrates required for HR via recruitment of CtIP protein to sites of DNA damage (35). In addition to regulation by phosphorylation, the role of SAMHD1 in HR can be controlled by SIRT1 deacetylation as this facilitates SAMHD1 binding to double-strand DNA breaks (36). Moreover, SAMHD1 SUMOylation by PIAS1 also regulates its DNA binding and anti-viral activity (51). SIRT1 is a known component of the HPV16 E1-E2 DNA replication complex that can deacetylate E2 and HR host factors, such as WRN, to promote high fidelity E1-E2 DNA replication and control the viral life cycle (7–9, 52). Overall, the results suggest that HPV16 replication (or replication factors) converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor that assists with replication of the viral genome. We demonstrate here that SAMHD1 is recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA in C33a cells, and also to the HPV16 genome in HFK cells immortalized by HPV16. CRISPR/Cas9 removal of SAMHD1 in N/Tert-1 cells containing the HPV16 genome resulted in increased cell proliferation, viral replication, and DNA damage, demonstrating that SAMHD1 is a restriction factor controlling the virally infected cell (33). The phenotypes observed could also be related to the effects on host DNA replication in the absence of SAMHD1. If the virus converts SAMHD1 into an HR factor, this could be important in managing host DNA replication in the presence of an active DDR generated by viral replication.

Although HPV genomes integrate in the majority of cervical cancers, in oropharyngeal cancers, the majority retain an episomal HPV16 genome (53, 54). The presence of viral replication in these cancers presents a potential therapeutic target, as reducing viral replication will ultimately reduce the levels of E6 and E7 proteins potentially increasing the expression of their tumor suppressor targets p53 and pRb, respectively. Such an increase would promote the response of the tumors to chemotherapeutic agents such as radiation and cisplatin. The conversion of SAMHD1 into an HR factor only in the HFK cells containing replicating viral genomes creates a difference with control cells that we sought to exploit. Phosphatases are an important component of DNA replication complexes, and we investigated whether a SAMHD1 phospho-mimetic could disrupt HPV16 replication. The results demonstrate that SAMHD1 T592D (the aspartic acid providing a negative charge mimicking phosphorylation) is hyper-recruited to E1-E2 replicating DNA in C33a cells and reduces the levels of replication. This result supports the idea that dephosphorylation of SAMHD1 in the replication complex may cycle it off the replicating DNA, allowing continuous replication. SAMHD1 T592D also promoted recruitment of E1 and E2 to the replicating DNA in C33a cells, suggesting that the replication complex has become stalled, as there is a significant reduction in replication even though more replication factors are being recruited to the replicating DNA. In HFK+HPV16 cells, SAMHD T592D reduced the growth rates of the cells but could not do this in HFK+E6E7 cells. SAMHD1 T592D is also hyper-recruited to the viral genome in HFK cells and promotes an increase in the recruitment of E2 to the viral genome. The presence of SAMHD1 T592D also prevented the formation of viral replication centers following differentiation of HFK+HPV16 cells, as demonstrated by a significant reduction in γH2AX foci development in these cells following calcium treatment when compared with control cells. Strikingly, SAMHD1 T592D resulted in a significant reduction of viral DNA following differentiation, indicating that viral replication was blocked, resulting in viral genome degradation. This is supported by the observation that residual viral DNA becomes integrated in the HFK+HPV16 cells expressing SAMHD1 T592D. This suggests that the mode of HPV16 replication switches upon replication, as in non-differentiated cells, the viral genome integrity is not disrupted by the expression of SAMHD1 T592D. This demonstrates that SAMHD1 T592D can disrupt viral replication during differentiation. Although the HFK+HPV16 SAMHD1 T592D cells grew slower, we did not see a significant reduction in the viral DNA in these cells. This is perhaps due to cells dying due to reduced viral DNA over the longer term of these growth assays, or it could be due to SAMHD1 T592D regulating host DNA replication in the HFK+HPV16 cells and attenuating growth via slowing down host replication. It could be a combination of several factors that we will investigate in future studies.

To progress our results in a therapeutic direction, we next investigated the ability of the phosphatase PP2A inhibitor endothall to attenuate HPV16 replication and cell growth. PP2A dephosphorylates SAMHD1 (37) and, therefore, we anticipated that PP2A inhibition would mimic the phenotypes of SAMHD T592D. This is indeed what we saw as endothall treatment increased SAMHD1, E1, and E2 recruitment to replicating DNA in our C33a model while attenuating replication levels; endothall attenuated the growth of HFK+HPV16 cells preferentially when compared with control cells; endothall increased the recruitment of SAMHD1 and E2 to viral DNA in HFK+HPV16 cells, and prevented the development of replication foci following calcium-induced differentiation. Finally, we demonstrate that the growth of UMSCC104 cells, an HPV16-positive head and neck cancer cell line containing episomal viral genomes, is attenuated more than other head and neck cancer cell lines following endothall treatment, and SAMHD1 and E2 recruitment to the viral genome is increased by endothall treatment of UMSCC104 cells.

Overall, our results suggest that phosphatase inhibitors are therapeutic candidates for the management of HPV16-positive cancers that contain episomal genomes. Although we have demonstrated that endothall treatment increases the recruitment of SAMHD1 to E1-E2 replicating DNA, endothall treatment also likely increases the levels of recruitment of additional DDR/HR factors to the viral DNA. In addition, the toxicity of endothall in the HPV16 full genome cells could be related to the targeting of host replication, which is operating in an environment of an active DDR that would ordinarily arrest DNA replication. Future work will continue investigating the potential of targeting phosphatases for the treatment of HPV malignancies that contain replicating DNA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cell culture, plasmids, and reagents

N/Tert-1 cells were cultured in keratinocyte serum-free medium (K-SFM) (Invitrogen; catalog no. 37010022) supplemented with bovine pituitary extract, epidermal growth factor (EGF) (Invitrogen), 0.3 mM calcium chloride (MilliporeSigma; 21115), and 7.5 μM hygromycin at 37°C in a 5% CO2/95% air atmosphere. HFKs were immortalized with HPV16 or with 16 E6E7 expression vector pLXSN16E6E7, a gift from Denise Galloway (Addgene plasmid #52394), as described previously (21). The HFKs were cultured in DermaLife-K Complete media (LifeLine Cell Technologies). Mitomycin C-treated 3T3-J2 fibroblasts feeders were plated 24 hours prior to seeding N/Tert-1 or HFK cells on top of the feeders, in their respective cell culture media. Media were refreshed and 3T3-J2s supplemented as required. HN30 and UMSCC47 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (R&D Systems). UMSCC104 cells were cultured in EMEM (Quality Biological Inc) supplemented with 20% FBS and non-essential amino acids (NEAA) (Thermo Fisher). Both UMSCC104 and UMSCC47 cell lines were obtained from Millipore. HN30 cells were a gift from Hisashi Harada. C33a cells were obtained from ATCC (Manassas, VA, USA), grown in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, and were passaged every 3–4 days. In all cases, cell identity was confirmed via “fingerprinting,” and cell cultures were routinely monitored for mycoplasma.

To measure proliferation, cells were seeded in triplicate into 6-well plates at a density of 1 × 105 cells per well and were grown to 80% confluency (typically 3 days). The cells were then harvested by trypsinization and were stained with trypan blue, and viable cells were counted. The cells (1 × 105 per dish) were re-plated, and this was repeated every 3–4 days for 3 weeks. To measure the effect of endothall on proliferation, the cells were cultured in either 5 µM endothall or vehicle in media throughout.

To measure the sensitivity of cells to endothall, cells were seeded into 6-well plates at a density of 1 × 104 cells per dish and were cultured in either vehicle, 1, 5, 10, 25, or 50 μM endothall. Once vehicle wells reached 70%–80% confluency, media were removed and the cells were washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). One milliliter of 0.5% crystal violet was added per well, and the plates were incubated by shaking at room temperature for 30 minutes. The wells were washed five times with PBS, and the plates were left to dry. Crystal violet images were scanned using the Odyssey CLx Imaging System, and ImageJ was used for quantification.

All of the HPV16 plasmids utilized in these studies have been previously used and described by this laboratory: HPV16 pOriLacZ (pOriLacZ), HPV16 E1-(hemagglutinin, HA) (E1), HPV16 E2 (10, 39). SAMHD1 WT, T592A, and T592D lentiviral plasmids were described previously (32).

Transient DNA replication assay

C33a cells were plated out at 5 × 105 in 10-cm dishes. The following day, plasmid DNA was transfected using the calcium phosphate method. Three days post-transfection, a low molecular weight DNA was extracted using the Hirt method as previously described by Boner et al. (47). The digested sample was extracted twice with phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) and was precipitated with ethanol. Following centrifugation, the DNA pellet was washed with 70% ethanol, dried, and resuspended in a total of 150 µL water. Forty-two microliters of sample were digested with DpnI (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA) overnight to remove unreplicated pOri16LacZ; the sample was then digested with ExoIII (New England Biolabs) for 1 hour. Replication was determined by real-time PCR, as described previously (39). For endothall treatment, cells were cultured in 5 µM endothall 24 hours post-transfection, which was also 48 hours before harvesting. The fidelity of E1-E2 DNA replication was determined as previously described (42, 55).

Western blotting

Specified cells were trypsinized, washed with PBS, and resuspended in 2× pellet volume NP40 protein lysis buffer (0.5% Nonidet P-40, 50 mM Tris [pH 7.8], 150 mM NaCl) supplemented with protease inhibitor (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) and phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (MilliporeSigma). Cell suspension was incubated on ice for 20 minutes and then centrifuged for 20 minutes at 184,000 rcf at 4°C. Protein concentration was determined using the Bio-Rad protein estimation assay according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Protein (50 µg) was mixed with 2× Laemmli sample buffer (Bio-Rad) and was heated at 95°C for 5 minutes. Protein samples were separated on Novex 4%–12% Tris-glycine gel (Invitrogen) and were transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane (Bio-Rad) at 30 V overnight using the wet-blot transfer method. Membranes were then blocked with Odyssey (PBS) blocking buffer (diluted 1:1 with PBS) at room temperature for 1 hour and were probed with indicated primary antibody diluted in Odyssey blocking buffer overnight. The membranes were washed with PBS supplemented with 0.1% Tween (PBS-Tween) and were probed with the Odyssey secondary antibody (goat anti-mouse IRdye 800CW or goat anti-rabbit IRdye 680CW) (Licor) diluted in Odyssey blocking buffer at 1:10,000. The membranes were washed twice with PBS-Tween and an additional wash with 1× PBS. After the washes, the membrane was imaged using the Odyssey CLx Imaging System, and ImageJ was used for quantification, utilizing GAPDH as internal loading control. Primary antibodies used for Western blotting studies are as follows: 16E2 monoclonal B9 1/500 (56), SAMHD1 1/1,000 (Cell Signaling Technology, 49158), phospho-SAMHD1 1/500 (Cell Signaling Technology, 89930), GAPDH 1/10,000 (Santa Cruz, sc-47724), HA-Tag (Abcam, ab9110), WRN 1/1,000 (Cell Signaling Technology, 4666), MRE11 1/500 (Cell Signaling Technology, 4847), and V5-Tag 1/1,000 (Life Technologies, A190-119A).

Immunoprecipitation assay

Cell lysate was prepared as described above. The lysate (250 µg) was incubated with lysis buffer (0.5% Nonidet P-40, 50 mM Tris [pH 7.8], and 150 mM NaCl), supplemented with protease inhibitor (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) and phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (MilliporeSigma) to a total volume of 500 µL. A primary antibody of interest or an HA-tag antibody (used as a negative control) was added to this prepared lysate and was rotated at 4°C overnight. The following day, 40 µL of protein A beads per sample (MilliporeSigma; equilibrated to lysis buffer as mentioned in the manufacturer’s protocol) was added to the above mixture and was rotated for another 4 hours at 4°C. The samples were gently washed with 500 µL lysis buffer by centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 2–3 minutes. This wash was repeated three times. The bead pellet was resuspended in 4× Laemmli sample buffer (Bio-Rad), heat denatured, and centrifuged at 1,000 rcf for 2–3 minutes. The supernatant was applied to an SDS-PAGE system to separate and resolve proteins, and was then transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane using wet-blot transfer method. The membrane was probed for the presence of specific proteins as mentioned in the description of Western blotting above.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation

Cross-linking and chromatin extraction of C33a cells was carried out as previously described (10). For chromatin extraction from keratinocytes, the ChIP-It Enzymatic kit (Active Motif) was utilized, as the protocol dictated, including dounce homogenization to disrupt cells and incubation with shearing enzymes for 7.5 minutes with frequent agitation. In both cases, sheared chromatin was incubated with 1 μg primary antibody (HA, Abcam ab9110; V5, Abcam ab15828; SAMHD1, ProteinTech 1258-6-AP; a sheep E2 antibody as previously described [10]) and protein-G conjugated magnetic beads, rotating overnight at 4°C. The beads were then washed, and DNA was eluted via Proteinase K digestion. Precipitated DNA was measured via qPCR (Fwd 5′-GAAAACGAAAAGCTACACCCA-3′, Rev 5′-CAATGAATAACCACAACACAATTA-3′), and percentage pulldown was calculated by calculation to input: 100% Pulldown =100 × 2Input Ct−ChIP Ct.

For endothall treatment, cells were cultured in 5 μM endothall for 24 hours before fixation and chromatin harvest.

Immunofluorescence

For fluorescent staining, cells were cultured on coverslips coated with poly-L-lysine (MilliporeSigma) and were differentiated by culturing in 1.5 mM calcium-containing media (MCF-154, supplemented with CaCl2, both Invitrogen) for 3 days. For endothall treatment, cells were cultured in 5 μM endothall for the 3 days of differentiation. Coverslips were then washed in PBS and were fixed by incubation with ice-cold methanol for 10 minutes. These were permeabilized by incubation in 0.2% Triton X-100/PBS at room temperature for 15 minutes. Background staining was reduced by blocking the coverslips in 10% normal goat serum (LifeTechnologies). Primary antibodies were used at the dilutions as follows: SAMHD1 (1/500, Cell Signaling Technology, 49158), phospho-S139 Histone yH2AX 1/200 (Cell Signaling Technology, 9718). Immune complexes were visualized using Alexa 488- or Alexa 595-labeled anti-species specific antibody conjugates (Molecular Probes). Cellular DNA was stained with 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI, Santa Cruz, sc-3598). The coverslips were mounted onto slides using Vectashield medium (Thermo Fisher) and were visualized, and fluorescence was quantified using the Keyence imaging system.

Differentiation was confirmed by qRT-PCR analysis for involucrin (Fwd 5′-TCCTCCAGTCAATACCCATCAG-3′, Rev 5′-CAGCAGTCATGTGCTTTTCCT-3′). Involucrin induction was calculated relative to undifferentiated control using GAPDH (Fwd 5′-GGAGCGAGATCCCTCCAAAAT-3′, Rev 5′-GGCTGTTGTCATACTTCTCATGG-3′) as an internal housekeeping control.

Exonuclease V assay

PCR-based analysis of viral genome status was performed similarly to Myers et al. (45). Briefly, 20 ng genomic DNA was either treated with exonuclease V (RecBCD, NEB), or no enzyme control, for 1 hour at 37°C, followed by heat inactivation at 95°C for 10 minutes. Reactions containing linearized HPV16 DNA or circular plasmid were prepared and treated alongside genomic DNA as controls for enzyme function. Each reaction (2 ng) was then subject to PCR quantification using HPV16 E6 primers (to quantify viral DNA) or MITO and GAPDH primers (to quantify human circular and linear DNA, respectively). PCR was performed using a 7500 FAST Applied Biosystems thermocycler with SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems) and 100 µM of the following primer pairs: HPV16 E6 F: 5′-TTGCTTTTCGGGATTTATGC-3′ R: 5′-CAGGACACAGTGGCTTTTGA-3′; human mitochondrial DNA F: 5′-CAGGAGTAGGAGAGAGGGAGGTAAG-3′ R: 5′-TACCCATCATAATCGGAGGCTTTGG-3′; and human GAPDH DNA F: 5′-GGAGCGAGATCCCTCCAAAAT-3′ R: 5′-GGCTGTTGTCATACTTCTCATGG-3′. The following cycling conditions were used: 50°C for 2 minutes, 95°C for 10 minutes, 40 cycles at 95°C for 15 seconds, and a dissociation stage of 95°C for 15 seconds, 60°C for 1 minute, 95°C for 15 seconds, and 60°C for 15 seconds. Analysis was performed in Microsoft Excel, with “ExoV-treated Ct” – “No-enzyme control Ct” giving an indication of DNA digestion and, therefore, the amount of linear DNA present.

Statistics

Standard error was calculated from three independent experiments, and significance was determined using a Student’s t-test.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by US NIH grant R01DE029471 (I.M.M.), R21AI178143 (I.M.M.), and R01AI141410 (R.L.). R.L. was supported by Research Scholar Grant (134703-RSG-20–054-01-MPC) and Institutional Research Grant (IRG-14-192-40) from the American Cancer Society. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 zur Hausen H. 2009. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers - a brief historical account. Virology (Auckl) 384 :260–265. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2008.11.046
2 McBride AA. 2013. The papillomavirus E2 proteins. Virology (Auckl) 445 :57–79. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2013.06.006
3 Bergvall M, Melendy T, Archambault J. 2013. The E1 proteins. Virology (Auckl) 445 :35–56. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2013.07.020
4 Park P, Copeland W, Yang L, Wang T, Botchan MR, Mohr IJ. 1994. The cellular DNA polymerase alpha-primase is required for papillomavirus DNA replication and associates with the viral E1 helicase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91 :8700–8704. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.18.8700 8078945
5 Clower RV, Fisk JC, Melendy T. 2006. Papillomavirus E1 protein binds to and stimulates human topoisomerase I. J Virol 80 :1584–1587. doi:10.1128/JVI.80.3.1584-1587.2006 16415033
6 Masterson PJ, Stanley MA, Lewis AP, Romanos MA. 1998. A C-terminal helicase domain of the human papillomavirus E1 protein binds E2 and the DNA polymerase alpha-primase p68 subunit. J Virol 72 :7407–7419. doi:10.1128/JVI.72.9.7407-7419.1998 9696837
7 Das D, Bristol ML, Smith NW, James CD, Wang X, Pichierri P, Morgan IM. 2019. Werner helicase control of human papillomavirus 16 E1-E2 DNA replication Is regulated by SIRT1 deacetylation. MBio 10 :e00263-19. doi:10.1128/mBio.00263-19 30890607
8 Das D, Smith N, Wang X, Morgan IM. 2017. The deacetylase SIRT1 regulates the replication properties of human papillomavirus 16 E1 and E2. J Virol 91 :e00102–e00117. doi:10.1128/JVI.00102-17 28275188
9 James CD, Das D, Morgan EL, Otoa R, Macdonald A, Morgan IM. 2020. Werner syndrome protein (WRN) regulates cell proliferation and the human papillomavirus 16 life cycle during epithelial differentiation. mSphere 5 :e00858-20. doi:10.1128/mSphere.00858-20
10 Gauson EJ, Donaldson MM, Dornan ES, Wang X, Bristol M, Bodily JM, Morgan IM. 2015. Evidence supporting a role for TopBP1 and Brd4 in the initiation but not continuation of human papillomavirus 16 E1/E2-mediated DNA replication. J Virol 89 :4980–4991. doi:10.1128/JVI.00335-15 25694599
11 Donaldson MM, Mackintosh LJ, Bodily JM, Dornan ES, Laimins LA, Morgan IM. 2012. An interaction between human papillomavirus 16 E2 and TopBP1 is required for optimum viral DNA replication and episomal genome establishment. J Virol 86 :12806–12815. doi:10.1128/JVI.01002-12 22973044
12 Chappell WH, Gautam D, Ok ST, Johnson BA, Anacker DC, Moody CA. 2015. Homologous recombination repair factors Rad51 and BRCA1 are necessary for productive replication of human papillomavirus 31. J Virol 90 :2639–2652. doi:10.1128/JVI.02495-15 26699641
13 Anacker DC, Gautam D, Gillespie KA, Chappell WH, Moody CA. 2014. Productive replication of human papillomavirus 31 requires DNA repair factor Nbs1. J Virol 88 :8528–8544. doi:10.1128/JVI.00517-14 24850735
14 Gillespie KA, Mehta KP, Laimins LA, Moody CA. 2012. Human papillomaviruses recruit cellular DNA repair and homologous recombination factors to viral replication centers. J Virol 86 :9520–9526. doi:10.1128/JVI.00247-12 22740399
15 James CD, Fontan CT, Otoa R, Das D, Prabhakar AT, Wang X, Bristol ML, Morgan IM. 2020. Human papillomavirus 16 E6 and E7 synergistically repress innate immune gene transcription. mSphere 5 :e00828-19. doi:10.1128/mSphere.00828-19 31915229
16 Moody CA, Laimins LA. 2009. Human papillomaviruses activate the ATM DNA damage pathway for viral genome amplification upon differentiation. PLoS Pathog 5 :e1000605. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000605 19798429
17 Anacker DC, Moody CA. 2017. Modulation of the DNA damage response during the life cycle of human papillomaviruses. Virus Res 231 :41–49. doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2016.11.006 27836727
18 Gautam D, Moody CA. 2016. Impact of the DNA damage response on human papillomavirus chromatin. PLoS Pathog 12 :e1005613. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005613 27310012
19 Prabhakar AT, James CD, Fontan CT, Otoa R, Wang X, Bristol ML, Hill RD, Dubey A, Morgan IM. 2023. Human papillomavirus 16 E2 interaction with TopBP1 is required for E2 and viral genome stability during the viral life cycle. J Virol 97 :e0006323. doi:10.1128/jvi.00063-23 36840558
20 Prabhakar AT, James CD, Das D, Fontan CT, Otoa R, Wang X, Bristol ML, Morgan IM. 2022. Interaction with TopBP1 is required for human papillomavirus 16 E2 plasmid segregation/retention function during mitosis. J Virol 96 :e0083022. doi:10.1128/jvi.00830-22 35880889
21 Prabhakar AT, James CD, Das D, Otoa R, Day M, Burgner J, Fontan CT, Wang X, Glass SH, Wieland A, Donaldson MM, Bristol ML, Li R, Oliver AW, Pearl LH, Smith BO, Morgan IM. 2021. CK2 phosphorylation of human papillomavirus 16 E2 on serine 23 promotes interaction with TopBP1 and is critical for E2 interaction with mitotic chromatin and the viral life cycle. MBio. doi:10.1128/mBio.01163-21:e0116321
22 Sakakibara N, Chen D, McBride AA. 2013. Papillomaviruses use recombination-dependent replication to vegetatively amplify their genomes in differentiated cells. PLoS Pathog 9 :e1003321. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003321 23853576
23 Goldstone DC, Ennis-Adeniran V, Hedden JJ, Groom HCT, Rice GI, Christodoulou E, Walker PA, Kelly G, Haire LF, Yap MW, de Carvalho LPS, Stoye JP, Crow YJ, Taylor IA, Webb M. 2011. HIV-1 restriction factor SAMHD1 is a deoxynucleoside triphosphate triphosphohydrolase. Nat New Biol 480 :379–382. doi:10.1038/nature10623
24 Kim CA, Bowie JU. 2003. SAM domains: uniform structure, diversity of function. Trends Biochem Sci 28 :625–628. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2003.11.001 14659692
25 Beloglazova N, Flick R, Tchigvintsev A, Brown G, Popovic A, Nocek B, Yakunin AF. 2013. Nuclease activity of the human SAMHD1 protein implicated in the Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome and HIV-1 restriction. J Biol Chem 288 :8101–8110. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.431148 23364794
26 Ji X, Wu Y, Yan J, Mehrens J, Yang H, DeLucia M, Hao C, Gronenborn AM, Skowronski J, Ahn J, Xiong Y. 2013. Mechanism of allosteric activation of SAMHD1 by dGTP. Nat Struct Mol Biol 20 :1304–1309. doi:10.1038/nsmb.2692 24141705
27 Lahouassa H, Daddacha W, Hofmann H, Ayinde D, Logue EC, Dragin L, Bloch N, Maudet C, Bertrand M, Gramberg T, Pancino G, Priet S, Canard B, Laguette N, Benkirane M, Transy C, Landau NR, Kim B, Margottin-Goguet F. 2012. SAMHD1 restricts the replication of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 by depleting the intracellular pool of deoxynucleoside triphosphates. Nat Immunol 13 :223–228. doi:10.1038/ni.2236 22327569
28 Ryoo J, Choi J, Oh C, Kim S, Seo M, Kim S-Y, Seo D, Kim J, White TE, Brandariz-Nuñez A, Diaz-Griffero F, Yun C-H, Hollenbaugh JA, Kim B, Baek D, Ahn K. 2014. The ribonuclease activity of SAMHD1 is required for HIV-1 restriction. Nat Med 20 :936–941. doi:10.1038/nm.3626 25038827
29 St Gelais C, de Silva S, Amie SM, Coleman CM, Hoy H, Hollenbaugh JA, Kim B, Wu L. 2012. SAMHD1 restricts HIV-1 infection in dendritic cells (DCs) by dNTP depletion, but its expression in DCs and primary CD4+T-lymphocytes cannot be upregulated by interferons. Retrovirology Auckl 9 :105. doi:10.1186/1742-4690-9-105
30 Kim ET, Roche KL, Kulej K, Spruce LA, Seeholzer SH, Coen DM, Diaz-Griffero F, Murphy EA, Weitzman MD. 2019. SAMHD1 modulates early steps during human cytomegalovirus infection by limiting NF-κB activation. Cell Rep 28 :434–448. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.06.027 31291579
31 Laguette N, Sobhian B, Casartelli N, Ringeard M, Chable-Bessia C, Ségéral E, Yatim A, Emiliani S, Schwartz O, Benkirane M. 2011. SAMHD1 is the dendritic- and myeloid-cell-specific HIV-1 restriction factor counteracted by Vpx. Nature New Biol 474 :654–657. doi:10.1038/nature10117
32 Zhang K, Lv DW, Li R. 2019. Conserved herpesvirus protein kinases target SAMHD1 to facilitate virus replication. Cell Rep 28 :449–459. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.020 31291580
33 James CD, Prabhakar AT, Otoa R, Evans MR, Wang X, Bristol ML, Zhang K, Li R, Morgan IM. 2019. SAMHD1 regulates human papillomavirus 16-induced cell proliferation and viral replication during differentiation of keratinocytes. mSphere 4 :e00448-19. doi:10.1128/mSphere.00448-19 31391281
34 Cabello-Lobato MJ, Wang S, Schmidt CK. 2017. SAMHD1 sheds moonlight on DNA double-strand break repair. Trends Genet 33 :895–897. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2017.09.007 28969870
35 Daddacha W, Koyen AE, Bastien AJ, Head PE, Dhere VR, Nabeta GN, Connolly EC, Werner E, Madden MZ, Daly MB, et al. . 2017. SAMHD1 promotes DNA end resection to facilitate DNA repair by homologous recombination. Cell Rep 20 :1921–1935. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.008 28834754
36 Kapoor-Vazirani P, Rath SK, Liu X, Shu Z, Bowen NE, Chen Y, Haji-Seyed-Javadi R, Daddacha W, Minten EV, Danelia D, Farchi D, Duong DM, Seyfried NT, Deng X, Ortlund EA, Kim B, Yu DS. 2022. SAMHD1 deacetylation by SIRT1 promotes DNA end resection by facilitating DNA binding at double-strand breaks. Nat Commun 13 :6707. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34578-x 36344525
37 Schott K, Fuchs NV, Derua R, Mahboubi B, Schnellbächer E, Seifried J, Tondera C, Schmitz H, Shepard C, Brandariz-Nuñez A, Diaz-Griffero F, Reuter A, Kim B, Janssens V, König R. 2018. Dephosphorylation of the HIV-1 restriction factor SAMHD1 is mediated by PP2A-B55α holoenzymes during mitotic exit. Nat Commun 9 :2227. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04671-1 29884836
38 Erdödi F, Tóth B, Hirano K, Hirano M, Hartshorne DJ, Gergely P. 1995. Endothall thioanhydride inhibits protein phosphatases-1 and -2A in vivo. Am J Physiol 269 :C1176–84. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.1995.269.5.C1176 7491907
39 Taylor ER, Morgan IM. 2003. A novel technique with enhanced detection and quantitation of HPV-16 E1- and E2-mediated DNA replication. Virol (Auckl) 315 :103–109. doi:10.1016/S0042-6822(03)00588-9
40 Das D, Smith NW, Wang X, Richardson SL, Hartman MCT, Morgan IM. 2017. Calcein represses human papillomavirus 16 E1-E2 mediated DNA replication via blocking their binding to the viral origin of replication. Virol (Auckl) 508 :180–187. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2017.04.020
41 Ohle C, Tesorero R, Schermann G, Dobrev N, Sinning I, Fischer T. 2016. Transient RNA-DNA hybrids are required for efficient double-strand break repair. Cell 167 :1001–1013. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.001 27881299
42 Taylor ER, Dornan ES, Boner W, Connolly JA, McNair S, Kannouche P, Lehmann AR, Morgan IM. 2003. The fidelity of HPV16 E1/E2-mediated DNA replication. J Biol Chem 278 :52223–52230. doi:10.1074/jbc.M308779200 14559922
43 Jenkinson F, Zegerman P. 2022. Roles of phosphatases in eukaryotic DNA replication initiation control. DNA Repair (Amst) 118 :103384. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2022.103384 35973351
44 Myers JE, Zwolinska K, Sapp MJ, Scott RS. 2020. An exonuclease V-qPCR assay to analyze the state of the human papillomavirus 16 genome in cell lines and tissues. Curr Protoc Microbiol 59 :e119. doi:10.1002/cpmc.119 33064937
45 Myers JE, Guidry JT, Scott ML, Zwolinska K, Raikhy G, Prasai K, Bienkowska-Haba M, Bodily JM, Sapp MJ, Scott RS. 2019. Detecting episomal or integrated human papillomavirus 16 DNA using an exonuclease V-qPCR-based assay. Virology (Auckl) 537 :149–156. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2019.08.021
46 Akagi K, Li J, Broutian TR, Padilla-Nash H, Xiao W, Jiang B, Rocco JW, Teknos TN, Kumar B, Wangsa D, He D, Ried T, Symer DE, Gillison ML. 2014. Genome-wide analysis of HPV integration in human cancers reveals recurrent, focal genomic instability. Genome Res 24 :185–199. doi:10.1101/gr.164806.113 24201445
47 Boner W, Taylor ER, Tsirimonaki E, Yamane K, Campo MS, Morgan IM. 2002. A Functional interaction between the human papillomavirus 16 transcription/replication factor E2 and the DNA damage response protein TopBP1. J Biol Chem 277 :22297–22303. doi:10.1074/jbc.M202163200 11934899
48 Fradet-Turcotte A, Bergeron-Labrecque F, Moody CA, Lehoux M, Laimins LA, Archambault J. 2011. Nuclear accumulation of the papillomavirus E1 helicase blocks S-phase progression and triggers an ATM-dependent DNA damage response. J Virol 85 :8996–9012. doi:10.1128/JVI.00542-11 21734051
49 Sakakibara N, Mitra R, McBride AA. 2011. The papillomavirus E1 helicase activates a cellular DNA damage response in viral replication foci. J Virol 85 :8981–8995. doi:10.1128/JVI.00541-11 21734054
50 Reinson T, Toots M, Kadaja M, Pipitch R, Allik M, Ustav E, Ustav M. 2013. Engagement of the ATR-dependent DNA damage response at the human papillomavirus 18 replication centers during the initial amplification. J Virol 87 :951–964. doi:10.1128/JVI.01943-12 23135710
51 Saiada F, Zhang K, Li R. 2021. PIAS1 potentiates the anti-EBV activity of SAMHD1 through SUMOylation. Cell Biosci 11 :127. doi:10.1186/s13578-021-00636-y 34238351
52 Langsfeld ES, Bodily JM, Laimins LA. 2015. The deacetylase sirtuin 1 regulates human papillomavirus replication by modulating histone acetylation and recruitment of DNA damage factors NBS1 and Rad51 to viral genomes. PLoS Pathog 11 :e1005181. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1005181 26405826
53 Nulton TJ, Olex AL, Dozmorov M, Morgan IM, Windle B. 2017. Analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas sequencing data reveals novel properties of the human papillomavirus 16 genome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget 8 :17684–17699. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.15179 28187443
54 Anayannis NV, Schlecht NF, Ben-Dayan M, Smith RV, Belbin TJ, Ow TJ, Blakaj DM, Burk RD, Leonard SM, Woodman CB, Parish JL, Prystowsky MB. 2018. Association of an intact E2 gene with higher HPV viral load, higher viral oncogene expression, and improved clinical outcome in HPV16 positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS ONE 13 :e0191581. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191581 29451891
55 Bristol ML, Wang X, Smith NW, Son MP, Evans MR, Morgan IM. 2016. DNA damage reduces the quality, but not the quantity of human papillomavirus 16 E1 and E2 DNA replication. Viruses 8 :175. doi:10.3390/v8060175 27338449
56 Wieland A, Patel MR, Cardenas MA, Eberhardt CS, Hudson WH, Obeng RC, Griffith CC, Wang X, Chen ZG, Kissick HT, Saba NF, Ahmed R. 2021. Defining HPV-specific B cell responses in patients with head and neck cancer. Nat New Biol 597 :274–278. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2931-3
