Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2025 Jan 6;21(1):e1012843. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012843

USP5 inhibits anti-RNA viral innate immunity by deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitin on IRF3

Zigang Qiao 1,2,#, Dapei Li 1,#, Fan Zhang 1,#, Jingfei Zhu 1, Siying Liu 1, Xue Bai 1,2, Haiping Yao 1, Zhengrong Chen 3, Yongdong Yan 3, Xiulong Xu 2,*, Feng Ma 1,*
Editor: Andrew Mehle4
PMCID: PMC11737852  PMID: 39761299

Abstract

Interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) is a central hub transcription factor that controls host antiviral innate immunity. The expression and function of IRF3 are tightly regulated by the post-translational modifications. However, it is unknown whether unanchored ubiquitination and deubiquitination of IRF3 involve modulating antiviral innate immunity against RNA viruses. Here, we find that USP5, a deubiquitinase (DUB) regulating unanchored polyubiquitin, is downregulated during host anti-RNA viral innate immunity in a type I interferon (IFN-I) receptor (IFNAR)-dependent manner. USP5 is further identified to inhibit IRF3-triggered antiviral immune responses through its DUB enzyme activity. K48-linked unanchored ubiquitin promotes IRF3-driven transcription of IFN-β and induction of IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs) in a dose-dependent manner. USP5 simultaneously removes both K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin chains on IRF3. Our study not only provides evidence that unanchored ubiquitin regulates anti-RNA viral innate immunity but also proposes a novel mechanism for DUB-controlled IRF3 activation, suggesting that USP5 is a potential target for the treatment of RNA viral infectious diseases.

Author summary

Innate immunity is the first line of defense against highly pathogenic RNA viruses. IRF3 plays a crucial role in initiating IFN-I-dependent antiviral innate immunity. Post-translational modifications, particularly ubiquitination, control the stability and transcription activity of IRF3. However, it is unknown whether unanchored ubiquitination and deubiquitination of IRF3 involve modulating antiviral innate immunity against RNA viruses. Here, we show that IFN-I-mediated USP5 suppression enhances K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitination of IRF3, thereby promoting IRF3 activation and further IFN-β transcription. We demonstrate a protective role of the IFN-I-mediated downregulation of USP5 during host infected with RNA viruses. Our study also shows the dual cleavage activity of USP5 in deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin on IRF3, which provides insights into the molecular mechanisms governing host defense against RNA virus infection.


Highlights

  • USP5 is downregulated during host anti-RNA viral innate immunity in an IFNAR-dependent manner

  • USP5 inhibits antiviral innate immunity against RNA viruses

  • Unanchored K48-linked polyubiquitin chains promote IRF3 activation

  • USP5 deconjugates both K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin on IRF3

Introduction

In recent years, the RNA viruses have caused newly emerging and reemerging infectious diseases that present a significant risk to human health and survival [1]. Following infection by RNA viruses, the presence of foreign viral nucleic acids is detected by RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs), such as retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) and melanoma differentiation associated gene 5 (MDA5). Upon binding to viral RNAs, the CARD domains of RIG-I or MDA5 are exposed [25], facilitating the interaction with the downstream adapter protein mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS, also known as VISA, CARDIF, or IPS-1) [69]. Activated MAVS then recruits two cytosolic protein kinase complexes, TANK-binding kinase 1 (TBK1) and inducible I-kappaB kinase (IKKi) [10], which in turn activate the transcription factors interferon regulatory factor 3/7 (IRF3/7) [11], thereby inducing the expression of type I interferon (IFN-I) to establish the antiviral state in the infected host [12]. Effective clearance of invaded viruses requires sufficient activation of IRF3. However, proper termination of IRF3 activation is crucial to prevent immunopathology, including type I interferonopathies such as systemic lupus erythematosus [13]. To efficiently eliminate invaded pathogens while avoiding undesirable damage, a comprehensive understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating IRF3 activation becomes extremely important.

The expression and activation of IRF3 are strictly regulated by ubiquitination and deubiquitination. The K48-linked ubiquitination is commonly associated with IRF3 proteasomal degradation [14]. Several E3 ligases, including MID1 [15], UBE3C [16], RNF5 [17], TRIM26 [18], and c-Cbl [19], have been reported to enhance the K48-linked ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation of IRF3 to prevent excessive immune responses. A recent study indicates that the deubiquitinase BAP1 targets IRF3 to govern its stability by removing K48-linked ubiquitin chains during the innate immune responses [16]. In addition, the K63-linked ubiquitination has been identified as an IRF3 activator during viral infection [20]. A functionally deficient form of OTUD1 leads to the over-activation of innate immune signaling by maintaining the K63-linked ubiquitination of IRF3 [21]. However, the mechanisms regulating the turnover of K63-linked ubiquitination of IRF3 in antiviral immunity are not yet fully understood.

DUBs deconjugate anchored ubiquitin chains by breaking the isopeptide bond between the C-terminal glycine of ubiquitin (G76) and the lysine of the substrate, or between adjacent ubiquitin molecules within polyubiquitin chains [22,23]. Recent studies have demonstrated that unanchored polyubiquitination plays a key role in controlling innate immunity. The K63-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains directly activate TAK1 and IKK [24], and the K63-linked unanchored polyubiquitination of RIG-I and MDA5 has been shown to lead to the activation of the IFN-I signaling pathway [25,26]. Furthermore, unanchored K48-linked polyubiquitin chains stimulate the IKKi-dependent antiviral responses [27]. However, it is unknown whether IRF3 is a substrate of unanchored polyubiquitin and whether unanchored ubiquitination modifications regulate IRF3-dependent IFN-I production and thus antiviral innate immunity.

USP5 (also known as isopeptidase T) belongs to the ubiquitin-specific protease (USP) family of DUBs, not only removes anchored ubiquitin (Ub) from the target proteins but also uniquely removes and recycles unanchored Ub from the substrates [28,29]. Although USP5 has been reported to function as a scaffold in regulating innate immunity [30], further investigation is required to determine whether it has other targets in this context and whether its DUB enzyme activity is involved in modulating host antiviral innate immunity.

Here, we find that USP5 is significantly downregulated in the host cells infected with RNA viruses including influenza A virus (IAV), vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), and Sendai virus (SeV). USP5 inhibits antiviral immunity in a DUB enzyme activity-dependent manner by targeting IRF3. Mechanistically, USP5 constitutively interacts with IRF3, deconjugating both anchored K63-linked polyubiquitin chains and unanchored K48-linked polyubiquitin chains on IRF3. The dual cleavage activity of USP5 inhibits IRF3 phosphorylation, nuclear translocation, and subsequent IRF3-driven IFN-β transcription during RNA virus infection. These findings describe a critical role of USP5 in maintaining innate immune homeostasis and provide a novel target for the treatment of RNA virus infectious diseases.

Results

Downregulation of USP5 during host antiviral immunity in an IFNAR-dependent manner

To investigate the involvement of DUBs in modulating antiviral immune responses, we reanalyzed microarray data (GSE49840) from RNA virus-infected Calu-3 cells and observed a significant downregulation of USP5 expression (Fig 1A). To further validate this finding, we infected A549 cells with various RNA viruses, including VSV, SeV, and influenza virus A/WSN/33 (WSN). Consistently, USP5 expression was markedly suppressed upon viral infection (Fig 1B and 1C). Similar results were observed in mouse peritoneal macrophages (PMs) and bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) following infections with SeV, VSV, and WSN (Figs 1D and S1A). Interestingly, the transfection of viral mimics, including poly(I:C) and poly(dA:dT), as well as the stimulation with interferon-β (IFN-β), also resulted in a significant downregulation of USP5 expression (Figs 1D and S1A), suggesting that USP5 was downregulated by the IFN-I signaling. To determine the role of IFN-I in regulating USP5 expression, we derived PMs and BMDMs from wild-type (WT) and IFN-I receptor knockout (Ifnar1−/−) mice, followed by VSV infection or poly(I:C) transfection. As we expected, the mRNA level of USP5 was markedly decreased over time after VSV infection or poly(I:C) transfection, while the suppression of USP5 expression was completely abrogated in the absence of IFNAR1 (Figs 1E, 1F, S1B and S1C). In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that USP5 is downregulated during host immunity against viral infection in an IFNAR-dependent manner.

Fig 1. Downregulation of USP5 during host antiviral immunity in an IFNAR-dependent manner.

Fig 1

(A) The DUB mRNA expression of the IAV-infected or uninfected Calu-3 cells. Relative mRNA expression levels were calculated from the microarray datasets (GSE49840). (B) RT-qPCR analysis of Usp5 expression in the A549 cells infected with WSN (1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI) or SeV (0.1 MOI) for 12 h. (C) Immunoblot analysis of USP5 expression in the A549 cells infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) or VSV (0.1 MOI) for the indicated times. (D) RT-qPCR analysis of Usp5 expression in the BMDMs infected with WSN (1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI), or SeV (0.1 MOI) for 12 h, transfection with poly(I:C) (1 μg/mL), poly(dA:dT) (1 μg/mL), or stimulation with IFN-β (500 U/mL) for 6 h. (E) RT-qPCR analysis of Usp5 expression in the BMDMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 2, 4, and 8 h. (F) Immunoblot measurement of USP5, p-STAT1, and STAT1 levels in the BMDMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 4, and 8 h. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (B-F). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (E) or one-way ANOVA (B and D), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

USP5 promotes RNA virus infection

To assess the role of USP5 in regulating antiviral innate immunity, we overexpressed USP5 in cell lines and challenged these cells with SeV-GFP or VSV-GFP. Much more green fluorescent protein (GFP)-positive cells and more GFP fluorescence were observed upon USP5 overexpression (Figs 2A and S2A and S2B). Meanwhile, we utilized CRISPR-Cas9 system to efficiently knockout the USP5 gene in A549 cells (S2C and S2D Fig). Following infection with SeV-GFP and VSV-GFP, we observed fewer virus-infected cells in the USP5-/- cells compared to the WT cells (Figs 2B and S2E and S2F). In addition, we stably overexpressed USP5 in A549 cells using a lentiviral gene delivery system (S2G Fig). More viral genes and supernatant viral particles of SeV, VSV, and WSN were detected from the USP5 overexpressed cells than the control cells (Fig 2C and 2D). Consistently, we observed fewer viral genes and supernatant viral particles of these RNA viruses from the USP5-/- cells compared to the WT cells (Fig 2E and 2F). Taken together, these results have shown that USP5 facilitates RNA virus infection.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

USP5 promotes RNA virus infection. (A) Flow cytometry analysis of HEK293T cells transfected with empty vector (EV) or Myc-USP5 for 24 h and infected with SeV-GFP (0.1 MOI) or VSV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for another 6 h. Results from 3 independent experiments were quantified using histograms. (B) Flow cytometry analysis of the percentage of GFP-positive cells in the WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with SeV-GFP (0.5 MOI) or VSV-GFP (0.5 MOI) for 6 h. Results from 3 independent experiments were quantified using histograms. (C) RT-qPCR analysis of virus replication in the Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells, following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI), or WSN (1 MOI) for 24 h. (D) TCID50 assay analysis of viral load in the Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells, following infection with VSV (0.1 MOI) for 24 h. (E) RT-qPCR analysis of virus replication in WT and USP5-/- A549 cells, following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI), or WSN (1 MOI) for 24 h. (F) TCID50 assay analysis of viral load in the WT and USP5-/- A549 cells, following infection with VSV (0.1 MOI) for 24 h Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-F). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (A-F), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

USP5 inhibits host anti-RNA viral innate immunity

We sought to explore the underlying molecular mechanism for the protective role of USP5 deficiency during RNA virus infection. First, we analyzed the production of IFNB, ISG54, and CCL5 in USP5-overexpressed and USP5-/- A549 cells after viral infection. Less induction of the IFNB, ISG54, and CCL5 transcripts was observed in the SeV-infected USP5 overexpressed A549 cells than the control cells (Fig 3A). Conversely, USP5 deficiency facilitated the virus infection-triggered transcription of IFNB, ISG54, and CCL5 (Fig 3B). To assess the function of USP5 deficiency in mouse cell lines, we designed a small interfering RNA targeting Usp5 in RAW264.7 cells to efficiently knock down Usp5 expression (S3A Fig). We observed that Usp5 knockdown markedly promoted SeV- and VSV-induced IFN-β production (S3B and S3C Fig). Next, we investigated the impact of USP5 on the activation of IFN-I signaling pathways during RNA virus infection. We found that USP5 overexpression inhibited phosphorylation of IRF3 (upstream of IFN-β) and STAT1 (downstream of IFN-β) in response to SeV infection (Fig 3C). In contrast, loss of USP5 promoted phosphorylation of IRF3 and STAT1 under the same conditions (Fig 3D). In addition, upon SeV infection, we observed decreased IRF3 nuclear localization following USP5 overexpression, while knockout of USP5 facilitated IRF3 nuclear localization (Fig 3E–3G). Together, these results demonstrate that USP5 negatively regulates innate immune responses against RNA virus infection.

Fig 3. USP5 inhibits host anti-RNA viral innate immunity.

Fig 3

(A) RT-qPCR analysis of IFNB, ISG54, and CCL5 in the Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells, following infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of IFNB, ISG54, and CCL5 in the WT and USP5-/- A549 cells, following infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (C) Immunoblot analysis of indicated proteins in the lysates of Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (D) Immunoblot analysis of indicated proteins in the WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (E) Immunofluorescence (IF) analysis of the translocation of IRF3 in the Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells infected with or without SeV (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 50 μm. (F) IF analysis of the translocation of IRF3 in the WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with or without SeV (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 50 μm. (G) The results from 3 independent experiments shown in E and F were quantified using histograms. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-G). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (A, B, and G), ns, not significant; **p<0.01 and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

USP5 interacts with IRF3 via the DNA-binding domain of IRF3

Recent studies are highlighting the importance of the cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS)-stimulator of interferon genes (STING) signaling axis during RNA virus infection and disease pathogenesis [31,32]. To determine whether USP5 regulates anti-RNA viral innate immunity via the cGAS-STING pathway, we generated USP5 and STING double knockout (Usp5-/-Sting-/-) iBMM cells using the CRISPR-Cas9 system (S4A Fig). The results showed that STING knockout did not significantly affect the antiviral ability of USP5 deficiency (S4A and S4B Fig), suggesting that USP5 impairs anti-RNA virus immune responses mainly through the RIG-I signaling pathway rather than the cGAS-STING axis. To explore the role of USP5 in regulating RIG-I signaling, we assessed the roles of USP5 on RIG-I-, MAVS-, TBK1-, IKKi-, and IRF3-driven IFN-β transcription and ISGs induction using IFN-β luciferase (IFN-β-luc) and IFN-stimulated response element luciferase (ISRE-luc) reporters. Our findings demonstrated that USP5 significantly inhibited RIG-I-, MAVS-, TBK1-, IKKi-, and IRF3-induced IFN-β and ISRE transcription activities (Fig 4A), suggesting that IRF3 might be the target by which USP5 negatively regulates anti-RNA viral response. We used the bimolecular luminescence complementation (BiLC) assay to analyze whether there was an interaction between USP5 and IRF3 (Fig 4B). We found that USP5 was associated with IRF3, and poly(I:C) transfection further promoted this interaction (Fig 4C). Next, we employed the in situ proximity ligation assay (PLA), which visualizes endogenous protein-protein interactions and the subcellular localization of interacting proteins in situ [33,34], to investigate the endogenous interaction between USP5 and IRF3 (S4C Fig). We found that USP5 interacted with IRF3, and SeV infection significantly enhanced the endogenous interaction between USP5 and IRF3 in A549 cells (Fig 4D and 4E). To identify the IRF3 domain responsible for binding USP5, we generated a series of IRF3 domain deletion plasmids (Figs 4F and S4D). When the DNA-binding domain of IRF3 was deleted, IRF3 completely lost its ability to bind to USP5 (Fig 4G and 4H). These findings suggest that USP5 interacts with IRF3, and the DNA-binding domain of IRF3 mediates this interaction.

Fig 4. USP5 interacts with IRF3.

Fig 4

(A) The dual-luciferase activity assay of the IFN-β or ISRE reporter activity in the HEK293T cells co-transfected with either an EV or a USP5-expressing plasmid (200 ng), along with plasmids encoding RIG-I (2CARD), MAVS, IKKi, TBK1, and IRF3 (100 ng each) for 24 h. (B) Schematic diagram of the protein complementation assays based on two subdomains of the Gaussia luciferase, GlucC/GlucN. Created with Biorender.com. (C) HEK293T cells were transfected with the plasmids GlucC and GlucN or USP5-GlucN and IRF3-GlucC for 24 h and then transfected with or without poly(I:C) for 6 h, luciferase activity was measured from the cell lysates. (D and E) In situ Proximity Ligation Assay (PLA) analysis of the USP5 and IRF3 interaction in A549 infected with or without SeV (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. The results from 4 representative images were quantified using histograms. Scale bar, 5 μm. (F) Schematic diagram of IRF3 domains and truncation mutants. (G and H) In situ PLA analysis was conducted to map the USP5 interacted domain of IRF3. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with USP5 and full-length IRF3 or various IRF3 truncation mutants (DBD, ΔDBD, IAD) for 24 h, then infected with SeV at an MOI of 0.1 for 6 h, complex (red) represents IRF3 interacted with USP5, DAPI for cell nuclei (blue); The number of complexes per cell was determined by analyzing at least 4 images. Scale bar, 5 μm. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A and C). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (A and E) or one-way ANOVA (C and H), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

USP5 impairs both K48-linked and K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3

To investigate the involvement of USP5’s deubiquitinase activity in regulating antiviral immunity, we constructed plasmids encoding a C335A mutant (USP5-C335A) and a truncated mutant lacking two Ubiquitin-Associated (UBA) domains (USP5-ΔUBA) (Fig 5A). The C335 residue is crucial for the enzymatic activity of USP5, while the UBA domains are primarily responsible for recognizing polyubiquitin chains [29,35]. The USP5-C335A and USP5-ΔUBA mutations did not affect the binding between USP5 and IRF3 but abolished USP5-mediated inhibition of IRF3-induced IFN-β-luc transcriptional activity (Fig 5B–5D). Additionally, these mutations restricted USP5’s ability to enhance VSV-Rluc virus replication (Fig 5E). These results indicate that USP5 regulates host antiviral immunity via its DUB activity.

Fig 5. USP5 deconjugates both K48-linked and K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3.

Fig 5

(A) Schematic diagram of USP5 domains and mutants. (B and C) In situ PLA analysis was conducted to evaluate the interaction between USP5 mutants and IRF3. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with IRF3 and USP5 (full length) or USP5-C335A or USP5-ΔUBA plasmids for 24 h, then infected with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. The number of complexes per cell was determined by analyzing at least 4 images. Scale bar, 5 μm. (D) Dual-luciferase activity of an IFN-β reporter in the HEK293T cells transfected with IRF3 (100 ng) together with USP5, USP5-C335A, or USP5-ΔUBA (200 ng each plasmid). (E) HEK293T cells were transfected with EV, USP5, USP5-C335A, or USP5-ΔUBA plasmids for 24 h, then infected with or without VSV-Rluc for 8 h. Luciferase activity was measured from the cell lysates. (F) Immunoblot analysis of the ubiquitination change of IRF3 after USP5 transfection. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with EV, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub, or Myc-USP5, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub. At 24 h after transfection, cells were treated with MG132 (10 μM) for 8 h. Proteins in the lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. (G) HEK293T cells were co-transfected with EV, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub (K6, K11, K27, K29, K33, K48, K63), or Myc-USP5, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub (K6, K11, K27, K29, K33, K48, K63). At 24 h after transfection, cells were treated with MG132 for 8 h. Proteins in the lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. (H) Immunoblot analysis of the K63-linked ubiquitination change of IRF3 after USP5 transfection. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with EV/Myc-USP5/Myc-USP5-C335A/Myc-USP5-ΔUBA, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub(K63). At 24 h after transfection, the cells were treated with SeV and MG132 for 8 h. Proteins in the lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (D-H). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA (C-E), **p<0.01 and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

Next, we investigated the effect of USP5 on the total ubiquitination of IRF3 and found that USP5 could significantly remove polyubiquitin chains from IRF3 (Fig 5F). There are seven types of polyubiquitination linkages involving protein degradation, activation, or sub-cellular localization [36]. Further experiments showed that USP5 mainly removed K48- and K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3, suggesting that USP5-mediated regulation of two linkages in IRF3 ubiquitination might control different aspects of IRF3 function (Figs 5G and S4E). Moreover, mutations in USP5 (C335A and ΔUBA) abolished its ability to deubiquitinate IRF3 (Fig 5H). The K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3 is crucial for its activation and establishment of antiviral capability [20]. Thus, during RNA virus infection, USP5 effectively removes K63-linked polyubiquitination from IRF3 via its DUB enzyme activity, thereby limiting IRF3 transcriptional activities and suppressing antiviral responses.

USP5 deconjugates K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin on IRF3

K48-linked polyubiquitination is typically associated with protein degradation via the proteasome, and it is well-established that this process promotes IRF3 degradation [37]. However, K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains enhance IKKi activation during host innate immunity against RNA viruses [27]. Given that USP5 is a specific DUB capable of removing unanchored polyubiquitin chains [29], we investigated its effect on the unanchored ubiquitination of IRF3. Our results showed that USP5 selectively removed K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains from IRF3 without affecting K48-linked anchored polyubiquitin chains (Fig 6A). Conversely, USP5 did not affect K63-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains on IRF3 but significantly removed K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin chains from IRF3 (Fig 6B). To investigate the regulatory role of K48-linked unanchored ubiquitination in IRF3-mediated antiviral immunity, we constructed an Ub(K48)-G76A plasmid. This site-specific mutant contains a glycine-to-alanine substitution at the C-terminus (G76) of Ub(K48), promoting the generation of unanchored monoubiquitin or polyubiquitin chains due to its reduced ability to form a stable ternary complex catalyzed by E1 [3840]. Subsequently, we assessed the impact of K48-linked unanchored ubiquitin modification on IRF3-mediated IFN-β transcription and ISG induction using IFN-β-luc and ISRE-luc reporters. We found that Ub(K48)-G76A significantly enhanced IRF3-induced IFN-β and ISRE transcription activities (Fig 6C).

Fig 6. USP5 deconjugates K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin on IRF3.

Fig 6

(A) Immunoblot analysis of the K48-linked unanchored ubiquitination change of IRF3 after USP5 transfection. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with EV, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub(K48), or Myc-USP5, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub(K48). At 24 h after transfection, cells were treated with MG132 for 8 h. Proteins in the lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. (B) Immunoblot analysis of the K63-linked unanchored ubiquitination change of IRF3 after USP5 transfection. HEK293T cells were co-transfected with EV, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub(K63), or Myc-USP5, Flag-IRF3, and HA-Ub(K63). At 24 h after transfection, cells were treated with MG132 for 8 h. Proteins in the lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag antibody. (C) Dual-luciferase activity of the IFN-β and ISRE reporters in HEK293T cells transfected with IRF3 (100 ng) together with different doses (50 ng, 100 ng, and 200 ng) of HA-Ub(K48)-G76A. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-C). Mean ± SD, statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA (C), ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

In summary, our findings demonstrate that upon RNA virus infection, USP5 binds to IRF3 and efficiently removes both K63-linked anchored and K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains from IRF3. This dual deconjugating action inhibits IRF3 activation and the subsequent establishment of antiviral states (Fig 7). Therefore, IFN-I-mediated USP5 suppression enhances the K63-linked anchored and K48-linked unanchored ubiquitination of IRF3, thereby promoting IRF3 activation and further activating IFN-I and antiviral genes transcription.

Fig 7. Working model.

Fig 7

Upon RNA virus infection, a large amount of IFN-I is induced, leading to the downregulation of USP5 expression. USP5 binds to IRF3 and efficiently removes both K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin chains and K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains from IRF3. Therefore, IFN-I-mediated USP5 suppression enhances the K63-linked anchored and K48-linked unanchored ubiquitination of IRF3, thereby promoting IRF3 activation and further activating IFN-I and antiviral genes transcription. Created with Biorender.com.

Discussion

Preformed unanchored polyubiquitin chains exist in the cytoplasm, and certain topologies of some unanchored polyubiquitin chains may function as second messengers, rapidly assembling in response to various stimuli [27,41,42]. This property is crucial for host requirements to rapidly establish an antiviral state to combat viral infections. The role of unanchored polyubiquitin in defending against RNA virus infections has been well-established. K63-linked unanchored polyubiquitination of RIG-I and MDA5 is essential for the assembly of ordered complexes and IFN-I signaling activation [26,43,44]. Consistently, K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitination of IKKi enhances RIG-I signaling and induces ISG production during RNA virus infection [27]. In this study, our findings have shown the pivotal role of K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitination of IRF3 in regulating IRF3-mediated IFN-β production and establishment of antiviral states. Our findings not only identify IRF3 as a novel substrate for unanchored polyubiquitination but also provide evidence that the function of K48-linked polyubiquitination is influenced by the type of linkage (covalent or non-covalent).

The diversity of polyubiquitin chains is a major determinant regulating various biological functions, with the type of polyubiquitin chain linked determining the specific outcomes of the modification [45]. Previous studies have demonstrated that ubiquitin generates seven different types of polyubiquitin chains (K6, K11, K27, K29, K33, K48, and K63), among which the functions of K48 and K63 linkage polyubiquitin chains have been well characterized [45,46]. K63 polyubiquitin chains are necessary to activate the IFN-I innate immune response. Upon RNA virus infection, E3 ligase TRIM25 enhances the K63 polyubiquitin chains to catalyze the activation of RIG-I [47]. Additionally, K63-linked polyubiquitination of MAVS and TBK1 promotes their activation [48,49]. Evidence has shown that Ubc5-mediated K63-linked polyubiquitination plays a key role in IRF3 activation [20]. These findings underscore the increasing significance of K63-linked ubiquitination in innate immune signaling. However, our understanding of the regulatory mechanism governing K63-linked ubiquitination of IRF3 remains limited. Although the DUB OTUD1 has been shown to remove K63-linked polyubiquitination in autoimmune disease models, its involvement in early innate immune responses by reducing IRF3 K63 ubiquitination is minimal, primarily due to its upregulation during viral infection [21]. In our study, we observed that IFN-I production during early stage of innate immune responses limits USP5 expression. Additionally, we identified USP5 as a DUB capable of effectively removing the K63-linked ubiquitination of IRF3. We also found that K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin has a similar function to K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin in triggering IRF3 activation. Future research should ideally include a detailed study to evaluate which form of ubiquitination is more crucial for IRF3 activation. Although we have identified IRF3 as a target of USP5 in regulating antiviral responses, our study does not exclude the involvement of other USP5 substrates in regulating host antiviral innate immunity.

USP5 is widely expressed in normal tissues and cells, and its roles in suppressing p53 transcriptional activity, promoting DNA damage repair, and regulating tumor cell growth highlight its critical involvement in maintaining normal cellular functions [5052]. Therefore, a clearer understanding of the mechanisms that govern USP5 expression is required. The transcription factor EBF1 enhances the transcription of USP5 in colorectal cancer cells by binding to its promoter [53]. In keloid fibroblasts, the polypyrimidine tract-binding protein (PTB) controls cell proliferation by regulating the alternative splicing of USP5 [54]. While the regulator of USP5 in antiviral immune responses remains unclear. In our study, we have identified IFN-I and its activators, including poly(I:C) and poly(dA:dT), as the upstream suppressors of USP5, and identified IFNAR1 as a key receptor regulating USP5 expression.

In summary, we have demonstrated that IFN-I-mediated USP5 suppression forms an alternative regulation pathway to facilitate host defense against numerous RNA viruses. Upon RNA virus infection, IFN-I production is induced, leading to the suppression of USP5 expression. This suppression enhances K63-linked anchored and K48-linked unanchored ubiquitination of IRF3, thereby promoting IRF3 activation and further activating IFN-I transcription. However, DNA viruses can also initiate the expression of IFN-I through the cGAS-STING signaling pathway [55]. Our findings have shown that IFN-I significantly suppresses the expression of USP5, indicating that DNA viruses may also suppress USP5 expression. Consequently, during DNA virus infection, USP5 potentially plays a role in regulating the anti-DNA viral immune response. Nevertheless, the function of USP5 in antiviral defense against DNA viruses and the underlying molecular mechanisms involved still require further investigation.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All animal experiments were conducted according to the US National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and approved by the Animal Service Center of Suzhou Institute of System Medicine (ISM) (ISM-IACUC-0011-R).

Mice

The C57BL/6J WT mice (male, 6–8 weeks) were purchased from Beijing Vital River Laboratory Animal Technology Company. The Ifnar1−/− mice with C57BL/6J background were gifted from Genhong Cheng Laboratory (University of California, Los Angeles, CA). All the mice were maintained in the specific pathogen-free (SPF) environment at ISM under controlled temperature (25°C) and a 12 h day-night cycle.

Reagents

Anti-USP5 antibody (#sc-390943) was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology. Anti-phospho-IRF-3 (Ser396, #29047), anti-IRF3 (#4302 and #11904), anti-phospho-STAT1 (Tyr701, #9167), anti-STAT1 (#14994), anti-HA-Tag-HRP (#2999), anti-Myc (#13987), anti-Flag (#8146), anti-K48-linkage specific polyubiquitin (#12805), anti-K63-linkage specific polyubiquitin (#12930), and anti-β-Actin (#3700) antibodies were from Cell Signaling Technology. Anti-α-Tubulin antibody (#T5168), mouse monoclonal anti-FLAG M2-HRP antibody (#A8592) and rabbit polyclonal anti-c-Myc-HRP antibody (#A5598), and MG132 (#M8699) were from Sigma. Poly(I:C) (LMW) (#tlrl-picw) and poly(dA:dT) (#tlrl-patn-1) were from InvivoGen. The recombinant mouse IFN-β was from PBL Assay Science (Piscataway, NJ).

Cell culture and activation

HEK293T, A549, and RAW264.7 cells were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). HEK293T and A549 cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) (GIBCO) containing 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS) (GIBCO) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin solution (P/S) (Invitrogen). RAW264.7 cells were maintained in RPMI 1640 medium (GIBCO) containing 10% FBS and 1% P/S solution. Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) were isolated from femurs and tibias of mice, and differentiated in the RPMI1640 medium with 10% FBS, 1% P/S, and 1% M-CSF-conditioned medium for 7 days as we described previously [56]. For mouse primary peritoneal macrophage (PM) preparation, the mice (male, 6–8 weeks) were intraperitoneally (i.p.) injected with 3% fluid thioglycollate medium (BD). Three days later, peritoneal exudate cells were collected and cultured for 1 h, the medium was replaced, and the adherent monolayer cells were PMs. All cells were cultured at 37°C in a 10% CO2 atmosphere. To activate the cells, poly(I:C) and poly(dA:dT) were transfected into BMDMs, PMs, or HEK293T cells by Lipofectamine 2000. The ratio of transfection reagent over ligands was 2 (μL/μg). Additionally, IFN-β was directly added into the macrophage culture medium to stimulate the cells.

Plasmid construction

The Myc-USP5, Myc-USP5-ΔUBA, Myc-USP5-C335A, HA-Ub(K6), HA-Ub(K11), HA-Ub(K27), HA-Ub(K29), HA-Ub(K33), HA-Ub(K48), HA-Ub(K63), and HA-Ub plasmids were kindly provided by Professor Jun Cui (Sun Yat-Sen University, China). The Flag-IRF3 and IRF3 mutants including Flag-IRF3-DBD, Flag-IRF3-ΔDBD, and Flag-IRF3-IAD plasmids were gifted by Dr. Xiaohong Du (ISM). PCR amplification was conducted utilizing pcDNA3.1-Myc-USP5 as the template, followed by insertion into the FG-EH-DEST2-PGK-Puro-WPRE (FGEH) empty vector to generate the FGEH-Myc-USP5 plasmid. The HA-Ub(K48)-G76A plasmid was constructed by the Mut Express II Fast Mutagenesis Kit V2 (Vazyme). All constructs were confirmed by Sanger DNA sequencing and all the amplification primers were available upon request.

ELISA

The IFN-β protein concentration in the cell supernatant was measured using the ELISA kit specific for IFN-β (PBL Assay Science), following the manufacturer’s instructions.

Luciferase assay

HEK293T cells were plated in 24-well plates and incubated for 24 h at 37°C and the cells were transfected with a mixture of IFN-β promoter firefly luciferase reporter plasmid (150 ng/well), Renilla luciferase (10 ng/well), together with EV or other indicated plasmids using polyethyleneimine (PEI) transfection reagents. These cells were collected 24 h after transfection and luciferase activity was measured with the Dual-Luciferase Assay (Promega). The relative activities of VSV-Rluc were measured 8 h post-infection using the Renilla luciferase assay system (Promega).

Bimolecular luminescence complementation (BiLC) assay

BiLC assays were utilized to assess the interaction between USP5 and IRF3. The open reading frames of USP5 and IRF3 were cloned into the BiLC reporter system, generating USP5-GlucN and IRF3-GlucC reporter constructs, as described previously [57]. For the interaction analysis, HEK293T cells were seeded in 24-well plates and transfected with either control vectors or the USP5-GlucN and IRF3-GlucC constructs. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were transfected with or without poly(I:C) (1 μg/mL) for 6 h. The relative Gaussia luciferase activities, indicative of USP5-IRF3 interaction, were measured using the Renilla luciferase assay system (Promega).

Immunoprecipitation

For immunoprecipitation (IP), whole-cell extracts were prepared post transfection. A portion of the total lysate was reserved as an input control. The left lysate was then incubated with anti-Flag or anti-IRF3 agarose beads at 4°C for 2 h. Subsequently, the beads were washed 3 times with lysis buffer and eluted with 1× SDS Loading Buffer in the 100°C metal bath for 10 min. The beads were removed by centrifugation, and the proteins were loaded, run SDS-PAGE gel, and transferred to a PVDF membrane (Millipore). The membrane was further incubated with the indicated antibodies. Protein detection was performed using chemiluminescence (ECL, Millipore) or the LI-COR Odyssey CLx imaging system.

Ubiquitination analysis

For the detection of protein ubiquitination, we transfected HEK293T cells with the indicated plasmids for 24 h and then treated these cells with MG132 (10 μM) for an additional 8 h. Concurrently, for endogenous ubiquitination assessment, A549 cells were infected with SeV for 1 h, and treated with MG132 (10 μM) for another 7 h. After these procedures, the cells were collected, and whole-cell extracts were prepared. The ubiquitination levels of exogenous or endogenous IRF3 were assessed using the standard IP protocol.

Unanchored ubiquitination analysis

For the analysis of unanchored polyubiquitination of IRF3, we followed the established protocol for isolating endogenous unanchored polyubiquitin chains on RIG-I and IKKi, as previously described [25,27]. The whole-cell extracts were prepared following the transfection with the indicated plasmids for 24 h. Afterwards, the extracts were incubated with anti-flag agarose beads for 2 h at 4°C. Subsequently, the beads were washed extensively with the lysis buffer at least 3 times. The proteins were immunoprecipitated by incubating the beads at 75°C for 5 min, and the eluted unanchored constituents were analyzed by immunoblot. Concurrently, the anchored immunoprecipitates remaining on the beads were washed 3 times, eluted, and also analyzed by immunoblot. Aliquots of whole-cell lysate (WCL) served as input controls.

Immunofluorescence assay

A549 cells were seeded in glass-bottom dishes. After infection with SeV for the indicated times, the dishes were collected. The cells were then briefly washed with PBS, fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.2% Triton X-100, and blocked with 1% goat serum. For the colocalization assay, the cells were incubated with the indicated primary antibodies (1:50 dilution) and subsequently stained with a fluorescent secondary antibody (1:200 dilution). Following incubation with 4’,6-diamino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), fluorescence imaging was performed using a LEICA TCA SP8 confocal microscope.

In Situ Proximity ligation assay

Duolink in situ PLA (Duolink Detection kit) was used to detect interactions between USP5 and IRF3 (WT or mutants). Cells were fixed using 4% formaldehyde, permeabilized with 0.2% Triton X-100, and incubated with indicated primary antibodies (mouse anti-Usp5 and rabbit anti-IRF3; mouse anti-Flag and rabbit anti-Myc) for assessing USP5-IRF3 interaction [58]. Slides were comprehensively assessed using a LEICA TCS SP8 confocal microscope. The interaction signals within each cell were quantified using ImageJ software.

Quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR)

Total cellular RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (ThermoFisher Scientific), and 500 ng of total RNA was reversely transcribed into cDNA using the PrimeScript RT Master Mix (Takara). TB Green Premix Ex Taq (Tli RNaseH Plus) (Takara) was used for RT-qPCR amplification on a Roche LightCycler 480 II system. The RT-qPCR primer sequences for target genes were listed in S1 Table.

RNA interference in RAW264.7

siRNA oligonucleotides targeting mouse Usp5 (ID: 22225) (5’-GCUGUGGAAG CCCUACUUUTT-3’) and negative control siRNA (5’-UUCUCCGAACGUGUC ACGUTT-3’) were ordered from GenePharma. RAW264.7 cells were transfected with indicated siRNA using INTERFERin (Polyplus-transfection) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The RNAi efficiency was checked by RT-qPCR 36 h after transfection.

Flow cytometry analysis

HEK293T and A549 cells were collected following infection with the SeV-GFP or VSV-GFP at the indicated MOI and time points. GFP-positive cells were analyzed using a Life Launch Attune NxT Flow Cytometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Data analysis was conducted using FlowJo software, version 10.0.

Microarray data analysis

For microarray analysis of IAV (H7N7 and H7N9)-infected or uninfected Calu-3 cells, raw data (accession no. GSE49840) were downloaded from GEO, and the DUB mRNA expression value was normalized by probe intensity.

Statistical analysis

The number of experimental repeats is shown in the figure legend. All bar graphs are means with either SD or SEM. Statistical analysis was conducted using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test or one-way ANOVA in GraphPad Prism 9 software. Differences between groups were considered significant when the p-value was less than 0.05. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Downregulation of USP5 during host antiviral immunity in an IFNAR-dependent manner.

(A) RT-qPCR analysis of Usp5 mRNA expression in the PMs following infection with WSN (1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI), and SeV (0.1 MOI) for 12 h, transfection with poly(I:C) (1 μg/mL), poly(dA:dT) (1 μg/mL), or stimulation with IFN-β (500 U/mL) for 6 h. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of USP5 mRNA levels in the PMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 2, 4, and 8 h. (C) Immunoblot analysis of Usp5 mRNA levels in PMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 4, and 8 h. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-C). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (B) or one-way ANOVA (A), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

(TIF)

ppat.1012843.s001.tif (335.5KB, tif)
S2 Fig. USP5 facilitates RNA virus infection.

(A) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of HEK293T cells transfected with EV or Myc-USP5 for 24 h, following infection with SeV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (B) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of HEK293T cells transfected with EV or Myc-USP5 for 24 h, following infection with VSV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (C) Schematic diagram of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing protocol for USP5 and the Sanger sequencing results. (D) Immunoblot analysis of USP5 expression in WT and USP5-/- A549 cells. (E) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with SeV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (F) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with VSV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (G) Immunoblot analysis of Myc-USP5 expression in Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A, B, and D-G). Created with Biorender.com.

(TIF)

ppat.1012843.s002.tif (3.3MB, tif)
S3 Fig. USP5 inhibits host anti-RNA viral innate immunity.

(A) RT-qPCR analysis of the RNAi efficiency targeting USP5 in RAW264.7 cells 36 h post-transfection. (B) RT-qPCR and ELISA analyses were conducted to assess Ifnb mRNA levels and IFN-β protein expression, respectively, in the control and USP5 knockdown RAW264.7 cells at 0, 12, and 24 h post-infection with SeV (0.1 MOI). (C) RT-qPCR and ELISA analyses were conducted to assess Ifnb mRNA levels and IFN-β protein expression, respectively, in control and USP5 knockdown RAW264.7 cells at 0, 12, and 24 h post-infection with VSV (0.1 MOI). Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-C). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (A-C), **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

(TIF)

ppat.1012843.s003.tif (147.5KB, tif)
S4 Fig. USP5 deconjugates both K48-linked and K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3.

(A) Immunoblot analysis of USP5 and STING expression in WT and Usp5-/-Sting-/- iBMMs. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of Ifnb, Isg54, and Ccl5 in WT and Usp5-/-Sting-/- iBMMs, following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (C) The schematic diagram indicates the principle of in situ PLA measuring endogenous USP5-IRF3 protein interactions in cells. (D) Immunoblot analysis of the expression of IRF3 truncation mutants. (E) Immunoblot analysis of the effect of USP5 on endogenous K48 and K63 ubiquitination of IRF3 following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A, B, D, and E). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (B), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences. Created with Biorender.com.

(TIF)

ppat.1012843.s004.tif (850.2KB, tif)
S1 Table. The primer sequence information.

(XLSX)

ppat.1012843.s005.xlsx (9.8KB, xlsx)
S1 Data. Datasheet containing raw data used to build the graphs in this manuscript.

(XLSX)

ppat.1012843.s006.xlsx (61.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the excellent technical support from the RNA technology platform of ISM. We thank Dr. Xiaohong Du and Professor Jun Cui for providing plasmids. We are grateful to Professor Genhong Cheng for supplying the Ifnar1-/- mice.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The microarray analysis raw data (accession no. GSE49840) were downloaded from GEO.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFA0900803 to FM), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32400726 to FZ, 82301982 to JZ, 32270924 to DL, and 32170880 to FM), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20230281 to JZ, BK20221256 to DL, and BK20200004 to FM), Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of CAMS (2019PT310028 to FM), the Special Research Fund for Central Universities, Peking Union Medical College (3332024090 to FZ), CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2021-I2M-1-041, 2021-I2M-1-047, 2022-I2M-2-004, and 2022-I2M-2-010 to FM), The Suzhou Municipal Key Laboratory (SZS2023005 to FM), NCTIB Fund for R&D Platform for Cell and Gene Therapy, and 333 High-level Talent Training Project to FM. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Boersma S, Rabouw HH, Bruurs L, Pavlovic T, van Vliet A, Beumer J, et al. Translation and Replication Dynamics of Single RNA Viruses. Cell. 2020;183(7):1930–1945.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yan N, Chen ZJ. Intrinsic antiviral immunity. Nat Immunol. 2012;13(3):214–22. doi: 10.1038/ni.2229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yoneyama M, Fujita T. RNA recognition and signal transduction by RIG-I-like receptors. Immunol Rev. 2009;227(1):54–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00727.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schlee M, Hartmann G. The chase for the RIG-I ligand—recent advances. Mol Ther. 2010;18(7):1254–62. doi: 10.1038/mt.2010.90 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kawai T, Akira S. Toll-like receptors and their crosstalk with other innate receptors in infection and immunity. Immunity. 2011;34(5):637–50. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Seth RB, Sun L, Ea CK, Chen ZJ. Identification and characterization of MAVS, a mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein that activates NF-kappaB and IRF 3. Cell. 2005;122(5):669–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Meylan E, Curran J, Hofmann K, Moradpour D, Binder M, Bartenschlager R, et al. Cardif is an adaptor protein in the RIG-I antiviral pathway and is targeted by hepatitis C virus. Nature. 2005;437(7062):1167–72. doi: 10.1038/nature04193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kawai T, Takahashi K, Sato S, Coban C, Kumar H, Kato H, et al. IPS-1, an adaptor triggering RIG-I- and Mda5-mediated type I interferon induction. Nat Immunol. 2005;6(10):981–8. doi: 10.1038/ni1243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Xu LG, Wang YY, Han KJ, Li LY, Zhai Z, Shu HB. VISA is an adapter protein required for virus-triggered IFN-beta signaling. Mol Cell. 2005;19(6):727–40. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2005.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fitzgerald KA, McWhirter SM, Faia KL, Rowe DC, Latz E, Golenbock DT, et al. IKKepsilon and TBK1 are essential components of the IRF3 signaling pathway. Nat Immunol. 2003;4(5):491–6. doi: 10.1038/ni921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lin R, Heylbroeck C, Pitha PM, Hiscott J. Virus-dependent phosphorylation of the IRF-3 transcription factor regulates nuclear translocation, transactivation potential, and proteasome-mediated degradation. Mol Cell Biol. 1998;18(5):2986–96. doi: 10.1128/MCB.18.5.2986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zheng J, Shi W, Yang Z, Chen J, Qi A, Yang Y, et al. RIG-I-like receptors: Molecular mechanism of activation and signaling. Adv Immunol. 2023;158:1–74. doi: 10.1016/bs.ai.2023.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Crow YJ, Stetson DB. The type I interferonopathies: 10 years on. Nat Rev Immunol. 2022;22(8):471–483. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00633-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu F, Chen J, Li K, Li H, Zhu Y, Zhai Y, et al. Ubiquitination and deubiquitination in cancer: from mechanisms to novel therapeutic approaches. Mol Cancer. 2024;23(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s12943-024-02046-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen X, Xu Y, Tu W, Huang F, Zuo Y, Zhang HG, et al. Ubiquitin E3 ligase MID1 inhibits the innate immune response by ubiquitinating IRF3. Immunology. 2021;163(3):278–292. doi: 10.1111/imm.13315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Liu X, Cui L, Tao Y, Xia S, Hou J, Cao X, et al. The deubiquitinase BAP1 and E3 ligase UBE3C sequentially target IRF3 to activate and resolve the antiviral innate immune response. Cell Rep. 2024;43(8):114608. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zhang W, Wang Q, Yang F, Zhu Z, Duan Y, Yang Y, et al. JMJD6 negatively regulates cytosolic RNA induced antiviral signaling by recruiting RNF5 to promote activated IRF3 K48 ubiquitination. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(3):e1009366. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang P, Zhao W, Zhao K, Zhang L, Gao C. TRIM26 negatively regulates interferon-beta production and antiviral response through polyubiquitination and degradation of nuclear IRF3. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11(3):e1004726. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhao X, Zhu H, Yu J, Li H, Ge J, Chen W. c-Cbl-mediated ubiquitination of IRF3 negatively regulates IFN-beta production and cellular antiviral response. Cell Signal. 2016;28(11):1683–93. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2016.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zeng W, Xu M, Liu S, Sun L, Chen ZJ. Key role of Ubc5 and lysine-63 polyubiquitination in viral activation of IRF3. Mol Cell. 2009;36(2):315–25. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.09.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lu D, Song J, Sun Y, Qi F, Liu L, Jin Y, et al. Mutations of deubiquitinase OTUD1 are associated with autoimmune disorders. J Autoimmun. 2018;94:156–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2018.07.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Snyder NA, Silva GM. Deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs): Regulation, homeostasis, and oxidative stress response. J Biol Chem. 2021;297(3):101077. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Soboleva TA, Baker RT. Deubiquitinating enzymes: their functions and substrate specificity. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2004;5(3):191–200. doi: 10.2174/1389203043379765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xia ZP, Sun L, Chen X, Pineda G, Jiang X, Adhikari A, et al. Direct activation of protein kinases by unanchored polyubiquitin chains. Nature. 2009;461(7260):114–9. doi: 10.1038/nature08247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zeng W, Sun L, Jiang X, Chen X, Hou F, Adhikari A, et al. Reconstitution of the RIG-I pathway reveals a signaling role of unanchored polyubiquitin chains in innate immunity. Cell. 2010;141(2):315–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Song B, Chen Y, Liu X, Yuan F, Tan E, Lei Y, et al. Ordered assembly of the cytosolic RNA-sensing MDA5-MAVS signaling complex via binding to unanchored K63-linked poly-ubiquitin chains. Immunity. 2021;54(10):2218–2230.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rajsbaum R, Versteeg GA, Schmid S, Maestre AM, Belicha-Villanueva A, Martinez-Romero C, et al. Unanchored K48-linked polyubiquitin synthesized by the E3-ubiquitin ligase TRIM6 stimulates the interferon-IKKepsilon kinase-mediated antiviral response. Immunity. 2014;40(6):880–95. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.04.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reyes-Turcu FE, Horton JR, Mullally JE, Heroux A, Cheng X, Wilkinson KD. The ubiquitin binding domain ZnF UBP recognizes the C-terminal diglycine motif of unanchored ubiquitin. Cell. 2006;124(6):1197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wilkinson KD, Tashayev VL, O’Connor LB, Larsen CN, Kasperek E, Pickart CM. Metabolism of the polyubiquitin degradation signal: structure, mechanism, and role of isopeptidase T. Biochemistry. 1995;34(44):14535–46. doi: 10.1021/bi00044a032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu Q, Wu Y, Qin Y, Hu J, Xie W, Qin FX, et al. Broad and diverse mechanisms used by deubiquitinase family members in regulating the type I interferon signaling pathway during antiviral responses. Sci Adv. 2018;4(5):eaar2824. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar2824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fan YM, Zhang YL, Luo H, Mohamud Y. Crosstalk between RNA viruses and DNA sensors: Role of the cGAS-STING signalling pathway. Rev Med Virol. 2022;32(5):e2343. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Franz KM, Neidermyer WJ, Tan YJ, Whelan S, Kagan JC. STING-dependent translation inhibition restricts RNA virus replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(9):E2058–E2067. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716937115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Soderberg O, Gullberg M, Jarvius M, Ridderstrale K, Leuchowius KJ, Jarvius J, et al. Direct observation of individual endogenous protein complexes in situ by proximity ligation. Nat Methods. 2006;3(12):995–1000. doi: 10.1038/nmeth947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Snider J, Kotlyar M, Saraon P, Yao Z, Jurisica I, Stagljar I. Fundamentals of protein interaction network mapping. Mol Syst Biol. 2015;11(12):848. doi: 10.15252/msb.20156351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ning F, Xin H, Liu J, Lv C, Xu X, Wang M, et al. Structure and function of USP5: Insight into physiological and pathophysiological roles. Pharmacol Res. 2020;157:104557. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Popovic D, Vucic D, Dikic I. Ubiquitination in disease pathogenesis and treatment. Nat Med. 2014;20(11):1242–53. doi: 10.1038/nm.3739 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Glanz A, Chakravarty S, Varghese M, Kottapalli A, Fan S, Chakravarti R, et al. Transcriptional and Non-Transcriptional Activation, Posttranslational Modifications, and Antiviral Functions of Interferon Regulatory Factor 3 and Viral Antagonism by the SARS-Coronavirus. Viruses. 2021;13(4) doi: 10.3390/v13040575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Amerik A, Swaminathan S, Krantz BA, Wilkinson KD, Hochstrasser M. In vivo disassembly of free polyubiquitin chains by yeast Ubp14 modulates rates of protein degradation by the proteasome. EMBO J. 1997;16(16):4826–38. doi: 10.1093/emboj/16.16.4826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pickart CM. Mechanisms underlying ubiquitination. Annu Rev Biochem. 2001;70:503–33. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.70.1.503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pickart CM, Kasperek EM, Beal R, Kim A. Substrate properties of site-specific mutant ubiquitin protein (G76A) reveal unexpected mechanistic features of ubiquitin-activating enzyme (E1). J Biol Chem. 1994;269(10):7115–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li W, Tu D, Brunger AT, Ye Y. A ubiquitin ligase transfers preformed polyubiquitin chains from a conjugating enzyme to a substrate. Nature. 2007;446(7133):333–7. doi: 10.1038/nature05542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Strachan J, Roach L, Sokratous K, Tooth D, Long J, Garner TP, et al. Insights into the molecular composition of endogenous unanchored polyubiquitin chains. J Proteome Res. 2012;11(3):1969–80. doi: 10.1021/pr201167n [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jiang X, Kinch LN, Brautigam CA, Chen X, Du F, Grishin NV, et al. Ubiquitin-induced oligomerization of the RNA sensors RIG-I and MDA5 activates antiviral innate immune response. Immunity. 2012;36(6):959–73. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.03.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xian H, Huang W, Sun T, Yang S, Zhang C, Wang J, et al. Unanchored ubiquitin chain sustains RIG-I-induced interferon-I activation and controls selective gene expression. Sci Bull (Beijing). 2021;66(8):794–802. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2020.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Pickart CM, Fushman D. Polyubiquitin chains: polymeric protein signals. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004;8(6):610–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2004.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Maupin-Furlow J. Proteasomes and protein conjugation across domains of life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;10(2):100–11. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gack MU, Shin YC, Joo CH, Urano T, Liang C, Sun L, et al. TRIM25 RING-finger E3 ubiquitin ligase is essential for RIG-I-mediated antiviral activity. Nature. 2007;446(7138):916–920. doi: 10.1038/nature05732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu B, Zhang M, Chu H, Zhang H, Wu H, Song G, et al. The ubiquitin E3 ligase TRIM31 promotes aggregation and activation of the signaling adaptor MAVS through Lys63-linked polyubiquitination. Nat Immunol. 2017;18(2):214–224. doi: 10.1038/ni.3641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Song G, Liu B, Li Z, Wu H, Wang P, Zhao K, et al. E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF128 promotes innate antiviral immunity through K63-linked ubiquitination of TBK1. Nat Immunol. 2016;17(12):1342–1351. doi: 10.1038/ni.3588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li J, Wang Y, Luo Y, Liu Y, Yi Y, Li J, et al. USP5-Beclin 1 axis overrides p53-dependent senescence and drives Kras-induced tumorigenicity. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):7799. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35557-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pahi ZG, Kovacs L, Szucs D, Borsos BN, Deak P, Pankotai T. Usp5, Usp34, and Otu1 deubiquitylases mediate DNA repair in Drosophila melanogaster. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5870. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09703-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Meng J, Ai X, Lei Y, Zhong W, Qian B, Qiao K, et al. USP5 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition by stabilizing SLUG in hepatocellular carcinoma. Theranostics. 2019;9(2):573–587. doi: 10.7150/thno.27654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Xu X, Huang A, Cui X, Han K, Hou X, Wang Q, et al. Ubiquitin specific peptidase 5 regulates colorectal cancer cell growth by stabilizing Tu translation elongation factor. Theranostics. 2019;9(14):4208–4220. doi: 10.7150/thno.33803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jiao H, Dong P, Yan L, Yang Z, Lv X, Li Q, et al. TGF-beta1 Induces Polypyrimidine Tract-Binding Protein to Alter Fibroblasts Proliferation and Fibronectin Deposition in Keloid. Sci Rep. 2016;6:38033. doi: 10.1038/srep38033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang X, Bai XC, Chen ZJ. Structures and Mechanisms in the cGAS-STING Innate Immunity Pathway. Immunity. 2020;53(1):43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhu J, Chen S, Sun LQ, Liu S, Bai X, Li D, et al. LincRNA-EPS impairs host antiviral immunity by antagonizing viral RNA-PKR interaction. EMBO Rep. 2022;23(5):e53937. doi: 10.15252/embr.202153937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wang Z, Ji J, Peng D, Ma F, Cheng G, Qin FX. Complex Regulation Pattern of IRF3 Activation Revealed by a Novel Dimerization Reporter System. J Immunol. 2016;196(10):4322–30. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1502458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Li D, Wu R, Guo W, Xie L, Qiao Z, Chen S, et al. STING-Mediated IFI16 Degradation Negatively Controls Type I Interferon Production. Cell Rep. 2019;29(5):1249–1260.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.09.069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Benhur Lee, Andrew Mehle

7 Oct 2024

Dear Professor Ma,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "USP5 restricts anti-RNA viral innate immunity by deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitin on IRF3" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. There was clear enthusiasm for the work you presented. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

Most of the reviewer requests are addressable. However, you will see that reviewer 3 requests the identification of the lysine residue in IRF3 that is modified with ubiquitin. This is a challenging experiment and not needed to support the claims, and thus this experiment is not required for resubmission. 

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Andrew Mehle

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Benhur Lee

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: Here the authors note from published work that the deubiquitinase USP5 is downregulated during RNA virus infections. They confirm this finding in several RNA virus infections and examine whether this has functional consequences. They find that USP5 overexpression increases infections while its knockout promotes infection. They observe an inverse correlation between USP5 expression and IFNb induction, suggesting that USP5 negatively regulates interferon induction during infection. They narrow in on IRF3 by using IFNb promoter reporter assays with overexpression of RIG-I/MDA5 signaling pathway components. Direct interaction of USP5 and IRF3 that is increased by infection was confirmed with several independent assays. Mechanistically, they show that USP5 decreases K63- and K48-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3 and that inhibition of IFNb induction and increase of viral infection is dependent on USP5 catalytic activity. The data are clear and convincing in support of the conclusion that USP5 deubiquitinates IRF3 to suppress its IFN-induction activity. This finding is significant because mechanisms limiting IFN induction are important for preventing excessive inflammation and tissue damage. Aside from minor suggestions and one major issue with data interpretation/writing as noted in point 4 below, I support the publication of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The study by Qiao et al. entitled “USP5 restricts an-RNA viral innate immunity by deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitin on IRF3” described a novel role of USP5 in regulating IRF3-dependent anti-RNA viral innate immunity. They have not only demonstrated a comprehensive regulatory mechanism that USP5 utilizes its dual-cleavage activity to deubiquitinate IRF3, but also provided a potential target for treating RNA virus infectious diseases. Overall, this is an interesting study with convincing results.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors reported that the deubiquitinase USP5 is significantly downregulated during the host's innate immune response against RNA viruses, in an IFNAR-dependent manner. USP5 binds to IRF3 and efficiently removes both K63-linked anchored polyubiquitin chains and K48-linked unanchored polyubiquitin chains from IRF3. This action inhibits IRF3-driven transcription of IFN-β and the induction of IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs). The authors further demonstrated that USP5 negatively regulates IRF3-induced antiviral immune responses through its DUB activity. Overall, this is an interesting study with good novelty, which offers valuable insights into the regulation of USP5-mediated immune responses. However, several issues need to be addressed before consideration of publication.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 1.The authors should add WB results for confirming the overexpression, knockdown, and knockout of USP5 in A549 cells and iBMMs. These results should be displayed adjacently to the corresponding functional experiments or included them in the supplementary figures.

2.In Figures S2A and S2B, the GFP fluorescence intensity is weak, and the differences is not so oblivious. It is recommended to extend the infection time or increase the viral infection MOI to enhance GFP intensity.

Reviewer #3: 1. Can the authors demonstrate which lysine residue of IRF3 undergoes deubiquitination by USP5?

2. Commercial antibodies for K48- and K63-linked polyubiquitination are available. It is good for the authors to detect endogenous IRF3 and its endogenous K48 and K63 ubiquitination using these antibodies?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: 1. The use of the word “restricts” in the title could be replaced by “inhibits” or “decreases.” The word restrict is usually used in this field in relation to restriction of virus infections (as opposed to restriction of innate immunity pathways that restrict virus infection as it is used here).

2. All bar graphs need to be re-made with symbols/colors that make more sense at first glance. The Key is confusing as open symbols are paired with solid bars and vice versa, making interpretation difficult.

3. The examination of STING KO cells in Fig 3 seems out of place and would not be a logical first place to start in terms of mechanistic examinations. This should be moved to later in the manuscript as a negative control or should be placed in the supplement.

4. Lines 180-190 describe the opposite of what the data show, and the conclusion at the end of this paragraph is the opposite of what they state in the previous lines. These are major mistakes in writing that are in opposition to the overall conclusions of the manuscript.

5. Line 192: This may be better written as “To explore roles of USP5 in RIG-I signaling, we assessed roles of…”

6. In Figure 5G, aren’t all of the ubiquitin chains shown in these blots expected to be anchored to IRF3 since it’s IP’d? It is thus confusing that the authors conclude that USP5 removes certain unanchored chains. Please clarify/explain further.

-Jacob Yount, The Ohio State University

Reviewer #2: 1.The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and types. The authors should check the manuscript carefully by themselves or use professional editing services for assistance.

2.In line 33, 'IFNAR' is mentioned for the first time, so its full name should be added.

3.In lines 149-151, to enhance readability, the text could be compressed by not repeating details and moving technical issues to the Materials and methods section or Figure legends.

4.Please provide the information in the methods section regarding the concentration of MG132.

5.Please discuss the potential role of unanchored ubiquitin in regulating host antiviral immunity against DNA viruses, since the cGAS-STING signaling pathway also requires IRF3 for induction of type I interferon.

Reviewer #3: 1.Figure 1F (left): the authors reported that viral infection can downregulate USP5 protein levels. However, in WT group, VSV upregulated Usp5 levels at time point 4 hrs. Please explain. In addition, total STAT1 levels were missing in Figure 1F.

2.Figure 2C, 2D: does USP5 overexpression or knockout affect virus titers?

3.Figure 3A-3C: does USP5 overexpression or knockout regulate basal expression levels of IFNB and ISGs?

4.Figure 3E: the p-STAT1 bands in Figure 3E are quite different from those in Figure 3D. Why? I would suggest to repeat Figure 3E to get clearer data.

5.Figure 4D: it is difficult to observe the staining of both USP5 and IRF3 in Figure 4D.

6.The authors reported that RNA viruses downregulate USP5 expression and that USP5 promotes RNA virus infection. How does USP5 affect DNA viruses?

7.In Figure 3F, the number of cells in each group varies considerably. Does USP5 regulate cell proliferation?

8.The description of results from lines 183 to 188 contains inaccuracies.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Benhur Lee, Andrew Mehle

17 Dec 2024

Dear Professor Ma,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'USP5 inhibits anti-RNA viral innate immunity by deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitin on IRF3' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Andrew Mehle

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Benhur Lee

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my conerns. No further comments.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All concerns I raised have been well addressed.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Hui Zheng

Acceptance letter

Benhur Lee, Andrew Mehle

25 Dec 2024

Dear Professor Ma,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "USP5 inhibits anti-RNA viral innate immunity by deconjugating K48-linked unanchored and K63-linked anchored ubiquitin on IRF3," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Downregulation of USP5 during host antiviral immunity in an IFNAR-dependent manner.

    (A) RT-qPCR analysis of Usp5 mRNA expression in the PMs following infection with WSN (1 MOI), VSV (0.1 MOI), and SeV (0.1 MOI) for 12 h, transfection with poly(I:C) (1 μg/mL), poly(dA:dT) (1 μg/mL), or stimulation with IFN-β (500 U/mL) for 6 h. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of USP5 mRNA levels in the PMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 2, 4, and 8 h. (C) Immunoblot analysis of Usp5 mRNA levels in PMs from WT and Ifnar1-/- mice, following VSV infection at 0.1 MOI or poly(I:C) transfection at 1 μg/mL for 0, 4, and 8 h. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-C). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (B) or one-way ANOVA (A), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012843.s001.tif (335.5KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. USP5 facilitates RNA virus infection.

    (A) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of HEK293T cells transfected with EV or Myc-USP5 for 24 h, following infection with SeV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (B) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of HEK293T cells transfected with EV or Myc-USP5 for 24 h, following infection with VSV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (C) Schematic diagram of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing protocol for USP5 and the Sanger sequencing results. (D) Immunoblot analysis of USP5 expression in WT and USP5-/- A549 cells. (E) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with SeV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (F) Fluorescence microscopy analyses of WT and USP5-/- A549 cells infected with VSV-GFP (0.1 MOI) for 6 h. Scale bar, 200 μm. (G) Immunoblot analysis of Myc-USP5 expression in Ctrl and Myc-USP5 overexpressed A549 cells. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A, B, and D-G). Created with Biorender.com.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012843.s002.tif (3.3MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. USP5 inhibits host anti-RNA viral innate immunity.

    (A) RT-qPCR analysis of the RNAi efficiency targeting USP5 in RAW264.7 cells 36 h post-transfection. (B) RT-qPCR and ELISA analyses were conducted to assess Ifnb mRNA levels and IFN-β protein expression, respectively, in the control and USP5 knockdown RAW264.7 cells at 0, 12, and 24 h post-infection with SeV (0.1 MOI). (C) RT-qPCR and ELISA analyses were conducted to assess Ifnb mRNA levels and IFN-β protein expression, respectively, in control and USP5 knockdown RAW264.7 cells at 0, 12, and 24 h post-infection with VSV (0.1 MOI). Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A-C). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (A-C), **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012843.s003.tif (147.5KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. USP5 deconjugates both K48-linked and K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF3.

    (A) Immunoblot analysis of USP5 and STING expression in WT and Usp5-/-Sting-/- iBMMs. (B) RT-qPCR analysis of Ifnb, Isg54, and Ccl5 in WT and Usp5-/-Sting-/- iBMMs, following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 0, 6, and 12 h. (C) The schematic diagram indicates the principle of in situ PLA measuring endogenous USP5-IRF3 protein interactions in cells. (D) Immunoblot analysis of the expression of IRF3 truncation mutants. (E) Immunoblot analysis of the effect of USP5 on endogenous K48 and K63 ubiquitination of IRF3 following infection with SeV (0.1 MOI) for 8 h. Data are representative of 3 independent experiments (A, B, D, and E). Mean ± SEM, statistical analysis was performed using unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (B), *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and ***p<0.001 indicate the significant differences. Created with Biorender.com.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012843.s004.tif (850.2KB, tif)
    S1 Table. The primer sequence information.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1012843.s005.xlsx (9.8KB, xlsx)
    S1 Data. Datasheet containing raw data used to build the graphs in this manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1012843.s006.xlsx (61.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    ppat.1012843.s007.docx (219.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The microarray analysis raw data (accession no. GSE49840) were downloaded from GEO.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES