Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Feb 10;18(2):e3000626. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000626

Conformational changes in the Ebola virus membrane fusion machine induced by pH, Ca2+, and receptor binding

Dibyendu Kumar Das 1,2,*, Uriel Bulow 1, William E Diehl 3, Natasha D Durham 1,4, Fernando Senjobe 1, Kartik Chandran 5, Jeremy Luban 3, James B Munro 1,4,6,*
Editor: Gregory Melikyan7
PMCID: PMC7034923  PMID: 32040508

Abstract

The Ebola virus (EBOV) envelope glycoprotein (GP) is a membrane fusion machine required for virus entry into cells. Following endocytosis of EBOV, the GP1 domain is cleaved by cellular cathepsins in acidic endosomes, removing the glycan cap and exposing a binding site for the Niemann-Pick C1 (NPC1) receptor. NPC1 binding to cleaved GP1 is required for entry. How this interaction translates to GP2 domain-mediated fusion of viral and endosomal membranes is not known. Here, using a bulk fluorescence dequenching assay and single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET)-imaging, we found that acidic pH, Ca2+, and NPC1 binding synergistically induce conformational changes in GP2 and permit virus-liposome lipid mixing. Acidic pH and Ca2+ shifted the GP2 conformational equilibrium in favor of an intermediate state primed for NPC1 binding. Glycan cap cleavage on GP1 enabled GP2 to transition from a reversible intermediate to an irreversible conformation, suggestive of the postfusion 6-helix bundle; NPC1 binding further promoted transition to the irreversible conformation. Thus, the glycan cap of GP1 may allosterically protect against inactivation of EBOV by premature triggering of GP2.


The Ebola virus envelope glycoprotein is a membrane fusion machine required for the virus to enter into host cells. This study presents direct observation of the conformational changes that the envelope glycoprotein undergoes during the membrane fusion process.

Introduction

Recent and ongoing outbreaks of Ebola virus (EBOV) disease in western and central Africa have resulted in unprecedented loss of life. The persistent threat of EBOV infection underscores the importance of establishing new strategies for therapeutic and preventative measures. Achieving this goal will benefit from a better understanding of the mechanism by which EBOV enters cells.

The EBOV envelope glycoprotein (GP) resides on the surface of the virion and mediates entry into host cells [1,2]. In the virus-producing cell, the GP0 polypeptide is posttranslationally cleaved by the host furin protease into disulfide-linked GP1 and GP2 domains [3]. GP1 facilitates attachment to the host cell. GP2 promotes fusion of the viral and endosomal membranes by a poorly defined mechanism. The EBOV virion is internalized by macropinocytosis and trafficked to the late endosome [46]. The acidic environment activates the cellular cathepsin B and L proteases, which cleave the mucin-like and glycan cap domains from GP1 [7,8], exposing the underlying binding site for the Niemann-Pick C1 (NPC1) receptor [912]. Whether the acidic environment of the late endosome is important in triggering fusion mediated by intact trimeric GP beyond activation of the cathepsins is unknown. However, studies of the isolated fusion loop (FL) [13], which resides near the N terminus of GP2 in the intact trimer, and thermodynamic measurements of the GP ectodomain have implicated a role for acidic pH [14]. NPC1 is essential for EBOV entry [15,16], but the underlying role of GP-NPC1 interaction in promoting the activation of GP2 for membrane fusion is unknown.

In addition to NPC1, EBOV entry into host cells also requires the activity of endosomal two-pore Ca2+ (TPC) channels [17], which are triggered by nicotinic acid adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAADP) to release Ca2+ from endosomes and lysosomes [14]. Inhibiting TPC function prevented EBOV infection, which implicates endosomal Ca2+ in EBOV entry. Several approved drugs, including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) possess anti-EBOV activity [18]. SERMs caused endo-lysosomal Ca2+ accumulation, further suggesting a role for Ca2+ in EBOV entry [19]. The role of Ca2+ in EBOV entry remains unknown, and the nature of its interaction with the intact GP trimer has not been elucidated. However, studies of the isolated FL of GP suggest that Ca2+ may facilitate interaction with the target membrane [20].

Crystallographic structural data depict GP in a prefusion conformation in which the FL in GP2 resides in a hydrophobic cleft within the neighboring protomer [1720]. Structures of GP in the postfusion conformation indicate a refolding of GP2, resulting in formation of a 6-helix bundle (6HB) [21,22]. Thus, the endpoints of the GP-mediated membrane fusion reaction have been described in atomic detail. But the sequence of events connecting these states and the presence of any functional intermediate states has not been described, although this mechanism may resemble that of influenza hemagglutinin (HA), the canonical class-I viral fusogen [23,24]. According to the model of HA-mediated membrane fusion, the FL must be released from the hydrophobic cleft and extend away from the surface of the virion, gaining access to the target endosomal membrane. The FL can then insert into the endosomal membrane, forming an extended intermediate. This putative intermediate then collapses, drawing the viral and endosomal membranes together, promoting their fusion. Thus, large-scale refolding of GP is postulated during viral fusion, which includes dramatic movements of the FL. Until recently, methodology that permits direct visualization of conformational changes in GP related to fusion has not been available.

Here, we probed the role of Ca2+, acidic pH, and NPC1 binding in the mechanism of GP-mediated membrane fusion. We first developed a bulk fluorescence-based virus-liposome lipid mixing assay. This approach demonstrated that NPC1 is essential to promote even a low level of lipid mixing, with acidic pH and Ca2+ increasing both the extent and kinetics of GP-mediated lipid mixing. We then developed an smFRET imaging assay to directly visualize the conformational changes in the GP2 domain, with a focus on visualizing the motion of the N terminus and the proximal FL. Our smFRET results showed that acidic pH and Ca2+ synergistically promote conformational changes in GP2, which involve the movement of the FL and the N terminus of GP2 away from the surface of the virion and toward the target membrane. These conformational changes remain fully reversible until the glycan cap is removed from GP1, at which point GP can transition to an irreversible conformation, which may be the postfusion 6HB. NPC1 binding accelerates the transition to the irreversible conformation. These data suggest a fusion model in which the low pH and Ca2+ concentration of the late endosome are critical to ensuring efficient EBOV entry. Furthermore, in addition to occluding the receptor-binding site, the glycan cap allosterically regulates the conformational dynamics of GP2. The necessity of glycan cap removal and subsequent NPC1 binding for efficient membrane fusion may prevent premature triggering of GP to the inactive postfusion conformation in the presence of Ca2+ at acidic pH.

Results

Low pH and Ca2+ accelerate GP-mediated lipid mixing

We first reconstituted virus-liposome lipid mixing using a fluorescence-based assay, an approach originally established for studying influenza fusion [21]. We formed pseudovirions using the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) core and EBOV GP from the Mayinga strain. We genetically removed the mucin-like domain from GP (GPΔmuc), which is dispensable for EBOV entry [22]. The glycan cap was then proteolytically removed, forming GPCL, which is competent for binding NPC1 (Materials and methods) [9]. The viral membrane was labeled with a self-quenching concentration of the lipophilic fluorophore DiO. Membrane-labeled virions maintained approximately 75% infectivity compared with unlabeled virions (S1A Fig). The labeled virions were introduced to liposomes coated with the soluble domain C of NPC1 (sNPC1-C). At neutral pH, we observed slow DiO dequenching, indicating that GPCL is capable of inefficiently mediating lipid mixing under these conditions (Fig 1A). Inclusion of a physiological concentration of Ca2+ (0.5 mM [23]) increased the rate of dequenching at neutral pH, although the extent of dequenching remained limited (Fig 1A). In agreement with live-cell imaging data [15], no dequenching was seen in the absence of sNPC1-C (Fig 1A) or prior to proteolytic removal of the glycan cap (S2A Fig). This confirms that the observed dequenching arises because of lipid mixing mediated by GP. Decreasing the pH to 6.2 and 5.2 resulted in increases in the extent of dequenching. Even at pH 5.2, no dequenching occurred in the absence of sNPC1-C. The rate of dequenching remained equivalently slow in the absence of Ca2+, irrespective of pH (Fig 1). The presence of equivalent concentrations of other divalent cations, Mg2+ or Zn2+, failed to accelerate dequenching at pH 5.2 in the presence of sNPC1-C (S2C Fig). Comparably robust dequenching was seen over a range of physiological Ca2+ concentrations (0.1–0.5 mM) at pH 5.2 in the presence of sNPC1-C (S2B Fig). However, the extent of dequenching was precipitously reduced in the presence of elevated Ca2+ concentrations ranging from 1 to 10 mM (S2B Fig). Consistently, Ca2+-channel antagonists and SERMs, which cause an accumulation of endo-lysosomal Ca2+, inhibited GP-mediated virus entry (S3 Fig) [1719]. These data demonstrate that NPC1 binding is essential for even a low level of GP-mediated lipid mixing and that physiological Ca2+ concentrations and acidic pH increase the extent and kinetics of lipid mixing.

Fig 1. Robust EBOV GP-mediated virus-liposome lipid mixing requires acidic pH, Ca2+, and NPC1.

Fig 1

Fluorescence dequenching reports on lipid mixing between labeled GPCL-containing pseudovirions and unlabeled liposomes. Fluorescence dequenching data acquired at the indicated pH are presented as the percentage of dequenching seen upon addition of 1% triton X-100, which solubilizes the viral membrane leading to maximal dequenching. Data are shown for liposomes without (yellow) or with (orange) sNPC1-C and in the additional presence of 0.5 mM CaCl2 (blue). The data are displayed as the average of 4 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard deviation. All dequenching data acquired in the presence of sNPC1-C and Ca2+ are fit to the exponential function A(1-e-kt) with fitting parameters at pH7: A = 0.038 ± 0.001, k = 0.06 ± 0.02; pH6: A = 0.072 ± 0.002, k = 0.023 ± 0.003; and pH5.2: A = 0.224 ± 0.006, k = 0.011 ± 0.001. The error bars in the fits represent 95% confidence intervals. All fits had R2 > 0.9. Fits were not well determined for the data lacking Ca2+ or sNPC1-C because of the limited observation window. Numeric lipid mixing data are provided in S1 Data. EBOV, Ebola virus; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1; sNPC1-C, soluble domain C of NPC1.

Site-specific attachment of fluorophores to GP

We next sought to understand the individual and combined effects of pH, Ca2+, and NPC1 binding on GP conformational changes related to membrane fusion. To this end, we developed an smFRET imaging assay similar to that developed for visualizing influenza HA conformational changes [24] (Fig 2A). In the context of GPΔmuc, we attached 1 fluorophore at position 501 at the N terminus of GP2, proximal to the FL [25,26]. We attached the second fluorophore at position 610, between helices α4 and α5 and adjacent to the CX6CC motif in GP2 (Fig 2B) [27]. We chose these sites to track the predicted conformational changes in GP2 during membrane fusion that lead to displacement of the N terminus and the FL with respect to the base of GP2. Structural data suggest a significant increase in the distance (approximately 60–70 Å) between the fluorophores after transition from the prefusion conformation to the postfusion 6HB conformation, which we anticipated would yield a decrease in FRET efficiency [25,2730]. To facilitate fluorophore attachment, we incorporated 2 trans-cyclooct-2-ene-L-lysine (TCO*) amino acids at positions 501 and 610 through amber stop codon suppression [31] (GP*; S4 and S5 Figs). We then formed pseudovirions with the HIV core and either GP or GP*. The pseudovirions were labeled with Cy3- and Cy5-tetrazine by Diels-Alder cycloaddition (Materials and methods). Compared to wild-type GP, GP* and GP*-Cy3/Cy5 maintained approximately 90% and 80% functionality in virus entry, respectively, and neutralization sensitivity to antibody KZ52, which binds an epitope at the base of GP [25]; in an alternative assay, GP* maintained better than 60% infectivity compared with GP (S1 Fig). These analyses indicate that GP*-Cy3/Cy5 maintains near-native functionality and a global prefusion conformation reflective of wild-type GP.

Fig 2. smFRET imaging assay for visualization of EBOV GP conformational changes related to membrane fusion.

Fig 2

(A) Experimental setup of smFRET imaging assay. (B) Structural model of the prefusion GPΔmuc trimer with one protomer labeled with donor and acceptor fluorophores (model based on PDB 5JQ3; Materials and methods). Unlabeled protomers within the trimer are shown in gray. GP2 (light blue) wraps around GP1 (maroon), with the FL residing in a hydrophobic cleft at the protomer interface and contacting the neighboring protomer. MD simulation indicates a time-averaged distance between the fluorophores of approximately 35 Å, consistent with a high-FRET state. (C) Representative example of fluorescence (donor, green; acceptor, red) and smFRET (blue) trajectories acquired from an individual GPΔmuc molecule, indicating a predominant high-FRET state at pH 7. Fluorophore photobleaching occurs at approximately 8 s. (D) Contour plot and FRET histogram indicating the predominant high-FRET state across the population of GPΔmuc molecules at pH 7. The loss of FRET signal over time shown in the contour plot arises because of photobleaching of the fluorophores. Overlaid on the FRET histogram are Gaussian fits of the 3 observed FRET states identified through HMM (Materials and methods). N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. EBOV, Ebola virus; FL, fusion loop; FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; HMM, hidden Markov modeling; MD, molecular dynamics; smFRET, single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer.

Low pH and glycan cap cleavage enable GP2 conformational changes

For smFRET imaging, pseudovirions were formed by diluting GP* with an excess of wild-type GP. The GP* protomer was then labeled with Cy3 and Cy5. The labeled virions were immobilized on quartz microscope slides and imaged using total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy (Materials and methods). The ratio of GP to GP* was determined such that only a single fluorophore pair was seen in the majority of virions. We first imaged the conformational dynamics of GPΔmuc at neutral pH in the absence of Ca2+, conditions predicted to favor the prefusion conformation. smFRET trajectories acquired from individual GPΔmuc molecules showed a predominant high-FRET state (0.95 ± 0.08), as expected based on the approximately 35-Å distance between the fluorophores estimated through molecular dynamics (MD) simulation of GPΔmuc in the prefusion conformation [25,27,28] (Fig 2B and 2C and S6 Fig). Acidification of the pH to 6, 5.2, and 4.5 led to stepwise reduction in the occupancy of the high-FRET state and increases in the occupancy of a low-FRET state (0.21 ± 0.08; Fig 3A). We also observed occupancy in an intermediate FRET state (0.52 ± 0.09), which did not respond to changes in pH. These data indicate that protonation of GP destabilizes the prefusion conformation and promotes conformations in which the GP2 N terminus has moved to positions, which increase the distance between the 2 fluorophores, giving rise to the low-FRET state. To test this interpretation, we mutated the furin cleavage site in GP. This gives rise to the uncleaved precursor, GP0, on which the GP2 N terminus is covalently linked to GP1. GP0 displayed stable high FRET even at acidic pH, confirming that the low-FRET state arises from a conformational change that displaces the GP2 N terminus (S7 Fig).

Fig 3. Ca2+, acidic pH, glycan cap removal, and NPC1 binding destabilize the prefusion conformation of GP.

Fig 3

(A) Contour plots displaying the FRET distribution from the population of individual GPΔmuc molecules, at the indicated pH, and in the absence and presence of 0.5 mM CaCl2. Also shown for each contour plot is the corresponding histogram, overlaid with Gaussian fits for each of the 3 FRET states. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. Shown at the right are the occupancies in the high- (blue), intermediate- (orange), and low-FRET (yellow) states, which are displayed as the average of 3 independent groups of traces, with error bars reflecting the standard error. Occupancies in the 3 FRET states are normalized such that their sum equals 100%. (B) The same data for GPCL and (C) GPCL bound to sNPC1-C. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1; sNPC1-C, soluble domain C of NPC1.

Glycan cap removal is an essential step during EBOV entry, because it makes available the NPC1-binding site, and may also facilitate conformational changes in GP related to membrane fusion [9,32,33]. Therefore, following removal of the glycan cap, we evaluated the conformational equilibrium of GPCL as a function of pH with smFRET. At pH 7, GPCL predominantly occupied the high-FRET prefusion conformation as seen for GPΔmuc (Fig 3B). Reduction in pH decreased the high-FRET occupancy and concomitantly increased the low-FRET occupancy more readily than for GPΔmuc (Fig 3B). Again, intermediate FRET was observed but did not respond to changes in pH. These data suggest that removal of the glycan cap makes GP2 conformation more responsive to changes in pH. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays demonstrated that NPC1 binds to GP more readily at acidic pH (S8 Fig). Thus, the acidic pH-induced conformational change in GP may facilitate NPC1 binding.

Reversibility of GP2 conformational changes

Given that Ca2+ accelerated the rate of virus-liposome lipid mixing, we sought to determine if it induced a conformational change in GP2. We therefore imaged GPΔmuc in the presence of 0.5 mM Ca2+. Across the pH range tested here, Ca2+ destabilized the high-FRET prefusion state of GPΔmuc and increased the occupancy in low FRET (Fig 3A, bottom). For GPCL, Ca2+ induced a notable decrease in high FRET and an increase in low-FRET occupancy at neutral pH, with the same trend across the pH range (Fig 3B, bottom). For both GPΔmuc and GPCL, at pH 7 and 4.5, the effect of Ca2+ was reversible; introduction of EDTA to sequester Ca2+ returned both GPΔmuc and GPCL to the conformational equilibrium observed prior to addition of Ca2+ (S9 Fig).

Consistent with live-cell imaging experiments, virus-liposome lipid mixing required the presence of sNPC1-C [15,16]. We therefore predicted that sNPC1-C binding would induce conformational changes in GP2 related to membrane fusion. To test this prediction, we incubated virions containing GPCL with sNPC1-C prior to smFRET imaging. Even at neutral pH, sNPC1-C induced a dramatic reduction in the occupancy of the high-FRET state and increased occupancy in low FRET (Fig 3C). Reduction in pH decreased occupancy in high FRET. As predicted from the virus-liposome lipid mixing data (Fig 1), the observation of the high-FRET prefusion state was further reduced by the addition of Ca2+ across the range of pHs investigated (Fig 3C).

We next asked whether GP2 could return from the low-FRET state after transient exposure to acidic pH. We exposed the virus to pH 4.5 for 10 min before returning to neutral pH. In the absence of Ca2+, GPΔmuc fully returned to high FRET after restoration of neutral pH (Fig 4A). Complete reversibility of GPΔmuc was maintained with inclusion of Ca2+ (Fig 4A). Thus, the low-FRET state stabilized by acidic pH and Ca2+ reflects a reversible conformation of GPΔmuc. In contrast, GPCL only partially returned to predominant high FRET after restoration of neutral pH, and occupancy in an irreversible low-FRET state emerged. The same irreversibility was seen in the presence of Ca2+ (Fig 4B). That is, low pH and Ca2+ promote transition of GPCL to an irreversible low-FRET state, which is distinct from the reversible low-FRET state seen for GPΔmuc. To test whether restoration of the high-FRET prefusion state correlates with GP’s ability to mediate lipid mixing, we exposed virions containing GPΔmuc to pH 4.5 for 10 min followed by restoration of neutral pH and cleavage of the glycan cap. Under these circumstances, GPCL maintained its ability to mediate virus-liposome lipid mixing in the dequenching assay (S2D Fig). The same maintenance of GP-mediated lipid mixing was seen in the presence of Ca2+. However, when the glycan cap was removed prior to incubation at pH 4.5 for 10 min, GPCL mediated only a low level of lipid mixing, whether or not Ca2+ was present (S2D Fig). Thus, restoration of the prefusion high-FRET state correlates with GP’s ability to mediate lipid mixing. Only partial reversibility of the low-FRET state was seen following preincubation with sNPC1-C at pH 4.5 for 10 min. The low-FRET state was entirely irreversible with the additional inclusion of Ca2+ (Fig 4C). Thus, incubation with sNPC1-C and Ca2+ at acidic pH induced transition of GPCL to a conformation that could not be reversed by restoring neutral pH.

Fig 4. NPC1 binding induces transition to an irreversible GP conformation.

Fig 4

(A) Contour plots and FRET histograms displaying the FRET distribution across the population of observed GPΔmuc molecules under the indicated conditions, either at pH 7, pH 4.5, or at pH 7 after 10-min exposure to pH 4.5 as indicated by the timeline at the top. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. Also shown at the right are the occupancies in high and low FRET under the indicated conditions, which are displayed as the average of 3 independent groups of traces, with error bars reflecting the standard error. (B) The same data for GPCL and (C) GPCL with sNPC1. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1.

Discussion

This study provides the first direct observations of conformational changes in intact, trimeric EBOV GP related to membrane fusion. Our results suggest a model of GP-mediated membrane fusion with essential roles for acidic pH, glycan cap removal, NPC1 binding, and endosomal Ca2+ (Fig 5). According to this model, prior to membrane fusion, GP has access to minimally 3 conformations. Given the proximity of the fluorophore attachment site at the GP2 N terminus to the FL, the FRET states observed here likely reflect conformations in which the FL adopts distinct positions. First, the high-FRET state is consistent with the prefusion conformation that has been described through x-ray crystallography [25,27]. Second, the intermediate FRET state may reflect a localized rearrangement of the FL that precedes the putative large-scale displacement predicted by the canonical model of class-I viral membrane fusion [34]. Alternatively, because the stability of the intermediate FRET state is not affected by any of the variables considered in this study, we cannot rule out the possibility that it reflects an off-pathway conformation that is not relevant to the mechanism of membrane fusion. Third, prefusion GP has access to a reversible low-FRET state in which the GP2 N terminus and the FL have moved away from the trimer axis or the viral membrane. Our observations demonstrate that acidic pH and Ca2+ directly initiate conformational remodeling of GP by shifting the equilibrium in favor of the reversible low-FRET conformation. Importantly, prior to removal of the glycan cap, the high-FRET prefusion conformation is reformed upon restoration of neutral pH or removal of Ca2+. We anticipate the transition to the postfusion 6HB would be irreversible because of the thermodynamic stability of similar envelope GPs in this conformation [35]. Thus, Ca2+ and acidic pH alone do not efficiently promote transition of GPΔmuc to the postfusion 6HB conformation on the timescale of our measurements. Rather, we speculate that the reversible low-FRET state is an intermediate conformation that is on pathway to the postfusion 6HB. This conformation may incorporate an FL position in which it can interact with the target membrane. Stabilization of an on-pathway intermediate conformation may indicate a mechanism by which acidic pH and Ca2+ promote virus-liposome lipid mixing.

Fig 5. Mechanistic model of GP-mediated membrane fusion.

Fig 5

The present observations are consistent with a model in which acidic pH and Ca2+ shift the prefusion conformational equilibrium of GP in favor of a conformation optimal for NPC1 binding. In this conformation, the GP2 N terminus and FL have moved out of the prefusion cleft to a position distal to the viral membrane. NPC1 then triggers irreversible transition to the postfusion conformation necessary for virus-liposome lipid mixing. The intermediate FRET state may represent an additional on-pathway intermediate or a conformation not relevant to the mechanism of viral fusion. FL, fusion loop; FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1.

In addition to mediating the conformational equilibrium of prefusion GP, the acidic pH of the endosome activates cellular cathepsin proteases. The cathepsins remove the mucin-like and glycan cap domains from GP1, exposing the receptor-binding site [9]. Our results support a critical role for the glycan cap beyond obscuring the receptor-binding site. Cleavage of the glycan cap made GP more responsive to reduction in pH, facilitating transition of GP2 to low-FRET conformations. A parallel smFRET imaging study of GP with fluorophores attached to the N termini of GP1 and GP2 reported a conformational change in GP1 at neutral pH upon glycan cap cleavage [36]. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that glycan cap cleavage induces a change in GP1, which in turn enables flexibility in GP2. Upon acidification, the GP2 N terminus and FL have greater ability to adopt positions outside the hydrophobic cleft in the neighboring protomer. In particular, removal of the glycan cap enables GP2 to transition to a low-FRET conformation that is not reversible after restoration of neutral pH. Thus, the glycan cap assists with allosterically regulating the timing of GP2 conformational changes, ensuring that GP does not prematurely trigger prior to arrival of the virion in a late endosome that contains the cathepsins and NPC1. This proposed mechanism is reminiscent of the prM protein in Dengue virus, which prevents triggering of the E GP prior to proteolytic cleavage of prM [37].

Glycan cap removal also has the well-established role of permitting GP binding to the NPC1 receptor, which is an essential step in EBOV entry [911,15,16]. Consistent with these observations, we find NPC1 binding is essential for GP-mediated lipid mixing. Our smFRET data provide the additional insight that NPC1 promotes GP2 transitioning from the reversible low-FRET conformation to the irreversible low-FRET conformation. The NPC1-binding site in GP1 is separated from the FL in GP2 by approximately 20Å, which indicates an allosteric connection between these functional centers. We documented a similar connection between the receptor-binding site and the fusion peptide in a study of influenza HA [24].

Although the site of Ca2+ binding to intact GP is currently unknown, one possibility is direct interaction with the FL, as previously demonstrated in a study of the isolated FL [20]. Sequence analysis of EBOV GP, as well as other filoviral GPs, indicates universally conserved acidic residues in the FL (D521, E522, and E540). Coordinating Ca2+ may neutralize the negative charge of these residues, triggering efficient release of the FL from the hydrophobic cleft. This potential charge neutralization may also facilitate FL insertion into the target membrane, as described for the Rubella virus (RuV) E1 GP [38]. Ca2+ may also stabilize a local conformation of the FL that is optimal for insertion into the target membrane. RuV E1 and EBOV GP now provide 2 examples of viral GPs that sense cellular Ca2+ as a means of regulating the timing and efficiency of fusion, analogously to cellular synaptotagmin, which promotes synaptic vesicle fusion [39].

EBOV experiences relatively high Ca2+ concentration in the extracellular space (approximately 1–2 mM). Following internalization via endocytosis the Ca2+ concentration decreases to approximately μM because of the action of pH-dependent Ca2+ channels [40]. Estimates of the Ca2+ concentration further along the endocytic pathway vary widely (3 to 600 μM) [23,40,41]. Previous studies have documented the importance for EBOV entry of TPC channels [17], which release Ca2+ from the late endosome [14]. Inhibition of TPC function prevented EBOV infection. Likewise, SERMs perturb the outflow of Ca2+ from the late endosome, which may explain their anti-EBOV activity [18,19]. Removal of Ca2+ from the endosome through chelation also reduced GP-mediated EBOV entry [19]. These studies clearly implicate endosomal Ca2+ as an important regulator of EBOV entry. We observed that maximal GP-mediated lipid mixing occurred over a range of 0.1 to 0.5 mM Ca2+, whereas excess Ca2+ (>1 mM) limited the extent of lipid mixing. One possible explanation is that elevated Ca2+ concentration inactivates GP because of premature triggering prior to efficient engagement with NPC1 or transition to a conformation that is not competent for fusion. In this case, the presence of the glycan cap on GP prior to internalization into the endosome may prevent against triggering in the Ca2+-rich extracellular space. Alternatively, elevated Ca2+ concentration may inhibit conformational changes in GP related to fusion.

As summarized in Fig 5, our data are consistent with a model in which acidic pH and Ca2+ shift the conformational equilibrium toward states in which the GP2 N terminus and the FL move out of their positions in the prefusion conformation. These conformational changes remain reversible until the glycan cap is removed. NPC1 binding then drives GP into the irreversible low-FRET conformation. This conformation may reflect the post fusion 6HB or a conformation preceding the 6HB in the fusion pathway. The fluorescence dequenching data presented here cannot distinguish between hemifusion and fusion pore formation. Furthermore, not all hemifusion events proceed to fusion pore formation [33,34]. Thus, the current observations do not specify whether acidic pH, Ca2+, and NPC1 binding are sufficient to trigger GP-mediated membrane fusion or whether additional factors are necessary [15]. Whatever the identity of the irreversible low-FRET state, maintaining reversibility in GP conformation is correlated with the ability of GP to mediate lipid mixing. This observation highlights the importance of the putative role of the glycan cap in preventing premature transition to the irreversible low-FRET state. Future studies are necessary to generate a mechanistic understanding of how the glycan cap and NPC1 binding in GP1 mediate the timing of GP2 conformational events. Likewise, specification of the mechanism by which Ca2+ can be both an accelerant and an inhibitor of GP-mediated fusion will require further investigation. The smFRET imaging approach presented will be a valuable tool in elucidating these questions.

Materials and methods

Production of pseudovirions with EBOV GP and the HIV-1 core

Pseudotyped virions were produced by transfecting HEK293T cells with plasmids encoding EBOV GPΔmuc from the Mayinga strain and HIV-1 GagPol. Cells were maintained in DMEM (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA) supplemented with 10% FBS (Gemini Bio, West Sacramento, CA), 100 U/mL penicillin/streptomycin (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA), and 2 mM L-glutamine (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA). At 12 h post transfection, the medium was replaced. Viral supernatant was harvested at 48 h post transfection, passed through a 0.45-μm filter to remove cell debris, and concentrated 10-fold by centrifugation for 2 h at 20,000g over a 10% sucrose cushion. The virus particles were then shown to be positive for EBOV GP and HIV-1 p24 by Western blot. The GPΔmuc contained on the virion surface was >90% proteolytically cleaved into GP1 and GP2. To produce virions with GPCL, the particles were incubated with thermolysin (0.2 mg/mL) from Bacillus thermoproteolyticus (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) at 37 ºC for 1 h, as described by Miller and colleagues [9]. Virions containing GP0 were produced in the same way after mutating the native furin cleavage site in GPΔmuc (RRTRR) to GGGGG by overlap extension PCR, which abolished cleavage of GP1 and GP2.

Noncanonical amino acid incorporation into EBOV GP*

We incorporated 2 TCO* ncAAs into the GP2 domain of EBOV GPΔmuc through amber stop codon suppression [31] (S4 and S5 Figs). To this end, we introduced TAG codons at position 501 of GP2 immediately after the furin cleavage site and at position 610 after the CX6CC motif by site-directed mutagenesis. Translation proceeds through the UAG codons on the mRNA only in the presence of an orthogonal tRNA (tRNAPyl), which recognizes the UAG codon, and a corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (NESPylRSAF). NESPylRSAF aminoacylates the suppressor tRNA with TCO*, facilitating its incorporation at specific locations into GP, forming GP*. The efficiency of amber suppression is limited because of competition of the eukaryotic release factor 1 (eRF1) with tRNAPyl [42]. Expression of the dominant negative eRF1 E55D mutant increased amber suppression efficiency.

Readthrough of the amber stop codons was evaluated in the context of the GP0 mutant so that detection of truncation at positions proximal to the fusion peptide were not complicated by the presence of GP1. The translation of full-length EBOV GP0 was first evaluated by transfecting HEK293T cells with plasmids encoding the TAG-mutated GP0 and NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl, eRF1 E55D, and HIV-1 Gag-Pol. The growth medium was supplemented with 0.5 mM TCO* ncAA (SiChem, Bremen, Germany). At 48 h post transfection, the virus was harvested, concentrated by centrifugation, and evaluated by Western blot (S5 Fig). In the presence of UAG codons at both positions 501 and 610, full-length GP0* was translated at approximately 5% to 10% efficiency as compared to wild-type GP and was dependent on the presence of NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl, TCO*, and eRF1 (E55D). Uncropped blots are provided in S1 Raw Images.

Pseudovirus fusion and infectivity assays

The function of the GP variants in membrane fusion and virus entry were evaluated in 2 ways. First, we specifically tested functionality in membrane fusion using a β-lactamase (Blam)-based enzymatic assay (LiveBlazer FRET B/G kit, Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA) [43]. Virions with either GP or GP* on their surface were formed as described above with an additional plasmid encoding Blam fused the HIV-1 Vpr protein. Virions with GP*-Cy3/Cy5 were formed by labeling GP* as described below. Of note, for the purpose of evaluating the functionality of GP* and GP*-Cy3-Cy5, pseudovirions were not formed with excess wild-type GP as done for smFRET imaging experiments. Virions were harvested and concentrated by centrifugation, as described above. Virus pellets were resuspended in RPMI medium (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA; supplemented with 0.2% BSA, 10 mM Hepes [pH 7]) and incubated with prechilled Vero cells for 1 h in a 96-well plate on ice to facilitate virus attachment to the cell surface. The plate was centrifuged for 30 min at 3,700 rpms at 4°C. The unbound virus was removed by washing the cells with Ca2+-free DMEM. The cells were incubated at 37°C for 90 min to permit viral entry in Ca2+-free complete DMEM, supplemented with 10 mM HEPES (pH 7), 0.2% BSA, and in the absence or presence of 0.5 mM CaCl2. The cells were then incubated in complete DMEM media (with Ca2+) containing 20 mM NH4Cl for 90 min at 37°C.

The cells were then loaded with the CCF4-AM fluorophore in the presence of 250 mM probenecid at 11°C overnight, and the infection was monitored by detecting cleavage of the CCF4-AM by Blam using a Synergy HT plate reader (Biotek, Winooski, VT). Virus particles containing GP* demonstrated fusion at approximately 90% of the efficiency of wild-type GP. Alternatively, virus particles were incubated with 50 μg/mL KZ52 antibody prior to introduction to the Vero cells, which resulted in neutralization of the GP*-containing virus as efficiently as that containing wild-type GP.

In the second assay, GP was pseudotyped onto a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) core containing a GFP expression reporter, as described by Whitt [44]. The 293Ts were transfected with GP using PEI transfection reagent. Transfected 293Ts were then infected with VSV-ΔG-GFP viral stocks at an MOI of 3. Virus-containing supernatant was collected 24 h post infection, passed through a 0.45 um filter, aliquoted, and frozen at −80°C. Thawed aliquots were either labeled or mock labeled with DiD as described below for DiO and used to infect naïve 293Ts in 6-well dishes for 5 h. DiD was used to evaluate the effects of a lipophilic fluorophore because it is spectrally distinct from GFP and chemically similar to DiO, which was used in the virus-liposome lipid mixing assay. Cells were collected and resuspended in PBS on ice and evaluated for GFP expression using flow cytometry.

Finally, to evaluate GP-mediated virus entry in the presence of inhibitory compounds, stocks of eGFP expressing HIV virions pseudotyped with Ebola GP were produced as previously detailed by Markosyan and colleagues [37]. Briefly, 6 × 105 HEK293 cells were seeded in 6-well plates and transfected using TransIT-LT1 with the following plasmids 24 h later: 1250 ng of the GFP-expressing lentiviral transfer vector pNL-EGFP/CMV-WPREΔU3 [42] (Addgene 17579, Watertown, MA), 930 ng of the self-inactivating second-generation lentiviral packaging vector pCD/NL-BH*ΔΔΔ [43], and 310 ng of the GP expression plasmid [37] (Addgene 86021). For infections, U2OS cells were treated for 2 h with the indicated concentration of verapamil, enclomiphene, tetrandrine, or DMSO (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). Following that, virus was added, and cells were incubated overnight in the presence of both virus and drug. The following morning media was replaced with fresh DMEM and incubated for an additional 48 h at which time cells were harvested and GFP expression was assessed by flow cytometry. Alternatively, virus and tetrandrine were incubated at room temperature for 30 min before incubating with target U2OS cells for 2 h on ice, after which virus was removed and cells were cultured for 72 h in fresh DMEM. Percent GFP positive cells in the drug-treated samples were compared to that observed with DMSO treatment, and inhibition curves were generated in Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). All numeric infectivity and fusion data are provided in S1 Data.

Virus-liposome lipid mixing assay

The in vitro assay used to probe the lipid mixing of virions and liposomes was described previously for a study of HA [24]. Briefly, virions with either GPCL or GPΔmuc were incubated with 50 μM DiO for 2 h at room temperature to label viral membrane. The labeled virions were purified by density gradient ultracentrifugation on a 6% to 30% Optiprep (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) gradient at 35,000 rpms for 1 h. Separately, liposomes were formed with a composition of 4:4:2:0.5:0.1 ratio of 1,2,dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC; Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL), 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC; Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL), cholesterol (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL), phosphatidyl serine (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL), and Ni-NTA DGS lipid (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL). Lipids were dissolved in chloroform and were evaporated under a stream of Ar gas. The dried lipid film was then suspended in phosphate buffer (pH 7.5) to a final concentration of 10 mg/mL. The liposomes were extruded through a polycarbonate membrane filter with pore sizes of 200 nm. To coat the liposome with the receptor, liposomes were incubated with polyhistidine-tagged sNPC1-C. The Ni-NTA DGS in the liposome was present in 100-fold molar excess over sNPC1-C to ensure minimal unbound sNPC1-C.

Liposomes (with or without sNPC1-C) were combined with DiO-labeled virions containing either GPCL or GPΔmuc and incubated at room temperature for 5 min at pH 7.5. Buffer was then added by stopped-flow to adjust the pH to the desired level, followed by time-based measurement of DiO fluorescence. For measuring the effect of Ca2+ on dequenching kinetics, CaCl2 was added to the virus-liposome mixture at the desired concentration. DiO was excited at 450 nm, and fluorescence was detected at 525 nm at 1 s intervals for 300 s at room temperature in a QuantaMaster 400 fluorimeter (Horiba, Kyoto, Japan). Dequenching data were fit to the exponential function A(1-e-kt) using a least-squares algorithm in Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA). All numeric lipid mixing data is provided in S1 Data.

Expression and purification of sNPC1-C

sNPC1-C containing an N-terminal polyhistidin tag was expressed by transfection of HEK293 Freestyle cells (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA) with polyethyleneimine (PEI MAX, Polysciences, Warrington, PA), as described by Miller and colleagues [9]. Six days post transfection, cell culture supernatant containing secreted sNPC1-C was harvested. sNPC1-C was extracted from the supernatant by passage over Ni-NTA agarose beads (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA). The sNPC1-C-bound Ni-NTA beads were washed and eluted by standard means. Purified sNPC1-C was dialyzed into 20 mM Tris-HCl, 100 mM NaCl, 2 mM β-mercaptoethanol, and 10% glycerol, followed by concentration with Vivaspin 6 spin filters (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany). The purified sNPC1-C was stored at −80°C until to use.

Fluorescently labeling EBOV GP* for smFRET imaging

For smFRET imaging, virions were formed with on average a single GP* protomer among the distribution of wild-type GP, as has been done previously for smFRET imaging studies of influenza HA and HIV-1 Env [24,45]. Briefly, HEK293T cells were transfected with a 1:5 ratio of plasmids encoding GP* and wild-type GP, and plasmids encoding HIV-1 Gag-Pol, NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl, and eRF1 (E55D), and grown in the presence of 0.5 mM TCO* ncAA. Given the limited efficiency (approximately 10%) of reading through 2 stop codons during translation of GP*, the ratio of GP* to wild-type GP plasmid ratio equates to an approximately 50-fold excess of wild-type GP protein over GP* protein. Virus was harvested, concentrated by centrifugation, and resuspended in phosphate buffer (pH 7.5). Virions were then labeled by incubation with 2 mM 3-(p-benzylamino)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine-Cy3 and 2 mM 3-(p-benzylamino)-1,2,4,5-tetrazine-Cy5 for 10 minutes at 37°C (Jena Bioscience, Jena, Germany). Because we introduced the same ncAA at both positions 501 and 610 of GP2, 50% of the labeled virions contained either 2 Cy3 fluorophores or 2 Cy5 fluorophores, which were easily removed from consideration during analysis (see below). Following the labeling reaction, DSPE-PEG2000-biotin (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL) was added and incubated with the virions for 30 min at a final concentration of 6 μM (0.02 mg/mL). The labeled virus was purified from unbound dye and lipid by ultracentrifugation for 1 h at 35,000 rpm over a 6% to 30% Optiprep (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) gradient in 50 mM Tris (pH 7.4), 100 mM NaCl. The gradient was fractionated, and the fractions containing virus were identified by p24 Western blot. The purified fluorescently labeled virus was stored at −80°C for use in smFRET imaging experiments.

smFRET imaging assay with TIRF microscopy

smFRET imaging experiments were performed on a custom-built prism-based TIRF microscope as described previously by Das and colleagues [24]. The fluorescently labeled virions were immobilized on the polyethylene glycol (PEG)-passivated, streptavidin-coated quartz microscope slides, and mounted on an XY automated stage (Applied Scientific Instrumentation, Eugene, OR). The surface-bound virions were illuminated by the evanescent field generated by total internal reflection of a 532-nm wavelength laser (Coherent, Santa Clara, CA) at an intensity of 0.2 kW/cm2. Fluorescence emission was collected through a 1.2-NA 60X water-immersion objective (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and passed through a T550LPXR dichroic filter (Chroma) to remove scattered laser light. Donor and acceptor emission were separated with a T635LPXR dichroic filter (Chroma, Bellows Falls, VT) and imaged on 2 parallel ORCA-Flash4.0-V2 sCMOS cameras (Hamamatsu, Hamamatsu City, Japan). Images were collected at 25 frames/second using MicroManager software (micro-manager.org).

During imaging buffer containing either 50 mM sodium phosphate pH 6 to 7 or sodium acetate pH 4.5 to 5.2 and 50 mM NaCl were introduced to the surface-bound virions using a syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, MA). For imaging the effects of Ca2+ on GP, conformation 0.5 mM CaCl2 was included in the imaging buffer. Also contained in the imaging buffer was a cocktail of triplet-state quenchers (1 mM trolox, 1 mM cyclooctatetraene, 1 mM nitrobenzyl alcohol), and an enzymatic system for removal of molecular oxygen, which included 2 mM protocatechuic acid and 8 nM protocatechuate 3,4-deoxygenase. All smFRET imaging experiments were performed at room temperature.

Data analysis

smFRET data analysis was performed using the SPARTAN software package with additional custom-written scripts in Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA) [46] (https://www.scottcblanchardlab.com/software). smFRET trajectories were automatically identified according to the selection criteria: (1) FRET between donor and acceptor was detectable for minimally 15 frames before photobleaching; (2) donor and acceptor fluorescence traces displayed a single step photobleaching event, which indicates the presence of a single donor fluorophore and a single acceptor fluorophore per virion; (3) the correlation coefficient of donor and acceptor fluorescence traces was less than −0.1; (4) the signal-to-noise ratio of the total fluorescence, defined as the ratio of the magnitude of the photobleaching event to the variance of the background signal, was greater than 8. Selected smFRET trajectories that met these criteria were fit to a hidden Markov model (HMM) consisting of 4 states, with FRET values of 0.00 ± 0.06, 0.21 ± 0.08, 0.52 ± 0.08, and 0.95 ± 0.08 (mean ± standard deviation) using the segmental k-means algorithm. HMM analysis assigns each FRET data point to one of the 4 states, which permits calculation of the time-averaged occupancies of the states. All the observed FRET data points prior to photobleaching were compiled into time-resolved histograms and displayed as contour plots. Data points assigned to the 0-FRET state were not plotted to enable clearer visualization of the 0.21-FRET state. Thus, the loss of a FRET signal over time in the contour plots results from photobleaching of the fluorophores. The time-resolved histograms were integrated over the observation window to yield one-dimensional FRET histograms, which were normalized such that the total probability, summed across all bins equals one. The error in the probability per histogram bin was determined by randomly assigning each FRET trajectory to 1 of 3 different groups and calculating the standard error of the mean of those groups. The explicit probabilities per histogram bin are shown in S1 Data.

MD simulations

An atomic model of the EBOV GP ectodomain was generated using coordinates determined with x-ray crystallography [27] (PDB 5JQ3). Models of the Cy3- and Cy5-tetrazine fluorophores and the TCO* ncAA were previously described by Das and colleagues [24]. In addition, the transition dipoles of the fluorophores were calculated using the CIS method in Gaussian 9. Fluorophores were attached to GP, hydrogen atoms were added to the protein, and the entire system was solvated in explicit water with charge-neutralizing ions in the LEaP module of AmberTools. The system was parameterized with the amber force field (ff14SB), the TIP3P water model, and the Generalized amber Force Field (GAFF2). Simulations were run at the Tufts High Performance Computing Center and on the c3ddb cluster at the Massachusetts Green High-Performance Computing Center using NAMD version 2.10. The system was energy minimized for 0.1 ns, followed by a 50 ns simulation run in the NPT ensemble, with temperature and pressure maintained at 300 K and 1 atm through the use of Langevin dynamics and the Nosé-Hoover Langevin piston method, respectively. The centers of mass of the Cy3 and Cy5 fluorophores were used to calculate the distance between the fluorophores at each frame of the simulation in VMD. The κ2 value, which parameterizes the rotational orientation of the 2 fluorophores, was calculated according to κ2 = [cos θDA - 3cos θD cos θA]2, where θDA is the angle between the transition dipoles of the donor and acceptor fluorophores, and θD and θA are the angles between the donor and acceptor dipoles, respectively, and the vector that separates the 2 fluorophores [47].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Functional evaluation of modified pseudovirions containing EBOV GP.

(A) Infectivity of GFP-expressing VSV particles pseudotyped with GP or GP* or labeled with the lipophilic fluorophore DiD. DiD was used in the infectivity measurements to evaluate the effect of a lipophilic fluorophore because it is spectrally distinct from GFP and chemically similar to the DiO fluorophore used in the lipid mixing assay. DiO excitation overlaps with that of GFP and thus could not be used in this assay. Infectivity is normalized to wild-type GP with an unlabeled virion. (B) Viral fusion was measured using a Blam-based virus entry assay (Materials and methods). HIV pseudovirions containing either GP, GP*, or GP*-Cy3/Cy5, and in the absence or presence of antibody KZ52. For the purpose of evaluating the functionality of GP* and GP*-Cy3-Cy5, pseudovirions were not formed with excess wild-type GP as done for smFRET imaging experiments. Pseudovirions were preincubated with 0.5 mM CaCl2 where indicated. Some enhancement of fusion was observed following the preincubation with CaCl2 indicating that the endosomal Ca2+ concentration in the target cells used here may be not be optimal for GP-mediated fusion. All GP variants were efficiently inhibited by KZ52, confirming that the TCO* residues do not perturb the global conformation of GP. Data are presented as the average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard deviation. EBOV, Ebola virus; GFP, green fluorescent protein; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; smFRET, single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer; VSV, vesicular stomatitis virus.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Proteolytic cleavage and NPC1 binding, and physiological Ca2+ are required for virus-liposome lipid mixing.

(A) As described in Fig 1, fluorescently labeled GP-containing virions were incubated with liposomes at the indicated pH and in the absence (red) or presence (blue) of Ca2+. No fluorescence dequenching was observed in the presence of NPC1 prior to removal of the glycan cap, regardless of the presence of Ca2+ or the pH. (B) In contrast to the acceleration observed in the presence of Ca2+, only slow dequenching was seen at pH 5.2 with NPC1 in the presence of 0.5 mM MgCl2 or ZnCl2. (C) Equivalent levels of dequenching were observed across a range of physiological Ca2+ concentrations (0.1–0.5 mM) at pH 5.2 with NPC1. However, Ca2+ concentrations of at least 1 mM led to a loss of dequenching. (D, top) Dequenching observed for pseudovirions containing GPΔmuc that were incubated at pH 4.5 for 10 min, followed by removal of the glycan cap with thermolysin. (Bottom) Dequenching observed for pseudovirions that were incubated after glycan cap removal. The same data are presented in the absence and presence of Ca2+, as indicated. In all panels, data are presented as the percentage of maximal dequenching seen upon addition of 1% triton X-100 and as an average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard deviation. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Ca2+ channel antagonists and a selective estrogen receptor modulator inhibit GP-mediated virus entry.

Pseudovirus infectivity was tested in the presence of compounds known to affect endosomal Ca2+ (Materials and methods). Infectivity is presented as a percentage of DMSO control. Data are presented as the average of 3 to 6 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard errors. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Experimental protocol for formation of pseudovirions containing a single GP* protomer.

See Materials and methods for details. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Read through of 2 amber stop codons leads to generation of full-length GPΔmuc.

(A) Wild-type GPΔmuc and GP0 efficiently incorporate into virions formed with the HIV core. Western blot demonstrating efficient furin-mediated cleavage of GP0. The HIV capsid protein, p24, serves as a loading control. (B) Translation of full-length GP* requires the presence of NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl, the TCO* ncAA, and the dominant negative E55D mutant of eRF1. eRF1, eukaryotic release factor 1; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; TCO*, trans-cyclooct-2-ene-L-lysine.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. MD simulation of fluorophore dynamics indicates an average interfluorophore distance of approximately 33 Å.

A molecular model of GP*-Cy3-Cy5 was generated based on the prefusion structure of GP (PDB accession code 5JQ3; Materials and methods). The histogram of distances between the centers of mass of the 2 fluorophores is shown. The average interfluorophore distance was 35 ± 4 Å, consistent with the 0.95-FRET state that predominates for GPΔmuc at pH 7. Models of the Cy3 and Cy5 fluorophores are shown with the calculated transition dipoles used to calculate the orientation factor κ2, which is 2/3 for freely tumbling fluorophores. The fluorophore orientations determined in the 50-ns trajectory led to κ 2 = 0.645 ± 0.320, indicating that on average the fluorophores are freely tumbling. Their relative rotational orientations vary considerably over time scales that are far shorter than our experimental time resolution of 40 ms. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; MD, molecular dynamics.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. The uncleaved precursor GP0 does not transition to the low-FRET state at acidic pH.

Contour plots and FRET histograms displaying the FRET distribution from the population of individual GP0 molecules at the indicated pH. Histograms are overlaid with Gaussian distributions as in Figs 24. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Acidic pH increases the extent of NPC1 binding to GP.

Pseudovirions containing GPCL were incubated with FLAG-tagged sNPC1-C across a range of pHs. Following incubation, excess sNPC1-C was removed with neutral pH buffer. The extent of binding was determined in an ELISA assay using an anti-FLAG antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (Materials and methods). Greater binding is seen at acidic pH, which may be due to acidic pH facilitating transition of GP to a conformation optimal for NPC1 binding. Data are presented as the average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard error. ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1; sNPC1-C, soluble domain C of NPC1.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. EDTA reverses the conformational change induced by Ca2+.

(A) Contour plots and FRET histograms for GPΔmuc and GPCL acquired under the indicated conditions. FRET data are displayed as in Figs 24. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. (B) Occupancies in the high- (blue), intermediate- (orange), and low-FRET (yellow) states determined through HMM analysis. Occupancies in the 3 FRET states are normalized such that their sum equals 100%. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; HMM, hidden Markov modeling.

(TIF)

S1 Data. Numeric data for each figure panel.

(PDF)

S1 Raw Image. Original images for all Western blots.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Angela Howard and Ramesh Govindan for critical reading of this manuscript, Dr. Edward Lemke for providing the NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl and eRF1 plasmids, and Dr. Dennis Burton for providing KZ52 expression plasmids.

Abbreviations

Blam

β-lactamase

EBOV

Ebola virus

eRF1

eukaryotic release factor 1

FL

fusion loop

FRET

Förster resonance energy transfer

GP

EBOV envelope glycoprotein

GPΔmuc

GP with the mucin-like domain deleted

HA

hemagglutinin

HIV

human immunodeficiency virus

HMM

hidden Markov modeling

MD

molecular dynamics

NAADP

nicotinic acid adenine dinucleotide phosphate

NPC1

Niemann-Pick C1

PEG

polyethylene glycol

RuV

Rubella virus

SERM

selective estrogen receptor modulator

smFRET

single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer

sNPC1-C

soluble domain C of NPC1

TCO*

trans-cyclooct-2-ene-L-lysine

TIRF

total internal reflection fluorescence

TPC

two-pore channel

VSV

vesicular stomatitis virus

6HB

6-helix bundle

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants DP2AI124384 (to J.B.M) and R01AI148784 (to J.L.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Saphire E, Aman JM. Feverish Quest for Ebola Immunotherapy: Straight or Cocktail? Trends Microbiol. 2016;24: 684–686. 10.1016/j.tim.2016.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Moller-Tank S, Maury W. Ebola virus entry: a curious and complex series of events. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11: e1004731 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Volchkov VE, Feldmann H, Volchkova VA, Klenk H-D. Processing of the Ebola virus glycoprotein by the proprotein convertase furin. Proc National Acad Sci. 1998;95: 5762–5767. 10.1073/pnas.95.10.5762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nanbo A, Imai M, Watanabe S, Noda T, Takahashi K, Neumann G, et al. Ebolavirus Is Internalized into Host Cells via Macropinocytosis in a Viral Glycoprotein-Dependent Manner. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mulherkar N, Raaben M, de la Torre J, Whelan SP, Chandran K. The Ebola virus glycoprotein mediates entry via a non-classical dynamin-dependent macropinocytic pathway. Virology. 2011;419: 72 83. 10.1016/j.virol.2011.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Saeed MF, Kolokoltsov AA, Albrecht T, Davey RA. Cellular Entry of Ebola Virus Involves Uptake by a Macropinocytosis-Like Mechanism and Subsequent Trafficking through Early and Late Endosomes. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6: e1001110 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chandran K, Sullivan N, Felbor U, Whelan S, Cunningham J. Endosomal proteolysis of the Ebola virus glycoprotein is necessary for infection. Science. 2005;308: 1643 1645. 10.1126/science.1110656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schornberg K, Matsuyama S, Kabsch K, Delos S, Bouton A, White J. Role of endosomal cathepsins in entry mediated by the Ebola virus glycoprotein. J Virol. 2006;80: 4174 4178. 10.1128/JVI.80.8.4174-4178.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miller E, Obernosterer G, Raaben M, Herbert AS, Deffieu MS, Krishnan A, et al. Ebola virus entry requires the host-programmed recognition of an intracellular receptor. Embo J. 2012;31: 1947 1960. 10.1038/emboj.2012.53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Côté M, Misasi J, Ren T, Bruchez A, Lee K, Filone C, et al. Small molecule inhibitors reveal Niemann-Pick C1 is essential for Ebola virus infection. Nature. 2011;477: 344 U122 10.1038/nature10380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carette JE, Raaben M, Wong AC, Herbert AS, Obernosterer G, Mulherkar N, et al. Ebola virus entry requires the cholesterol transporter Niemann-Pick C1. Nature. 2011;477: 340 U115 10.1038/nature10348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dube D, Brecher MB, Delos SE, Rose SC, Park EW, Schornberg KL, et al. The primed ebolavirus glycoprotein (19-kilodalton GP1,2): sequence and residues critical for host cell binding. J Virol. 2009;83: 2883 2891. 10.1128/JVI.01956-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gregory SM, Harada E, Liang B, Delos SE, White JM, Tamm LK. Structure and function of the complete internal fusion loop from Ebolavirus glycoprotein 2. Proc National Acad Sci. 2011;108: 11211 11216. 10.1073/pnas.1104760108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Galione A. NAADP Receptors. Csh Perspect Biol. 2011;3: a004036 10.1101/cshperspect.a004036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Spence JS, Krause TB, Mittler E, Jangra RK, Chandran K. Direct Visualization of Ebola Virus Fusion Triggering in the Endocytic Pathway. Mbio. 2016;7 10.1128/mbio.01857-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Simmons JA, D’Souza RS, Ruas M, Galione A, Casanova JE, White JM. Ebolavirus Glycoprotein Directs Fusion through NPC1(+) Endolysosomes. J Virol. 2016;90: 605 610. 10.1128/JVI.01828-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sakurai Y, Kolokoltsov AA, Chen C-C, Tidwell MW, Bauta WE, Klugbauer N, et al. Two-pore channels control Ebola virus host cell entry and are drug targets for disease treatment. Science. 2015;347: 995 998. 10.1126/science.1258758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Johansen LM, Brannan JM, Delos SE, Shoemaker CJ, Stossel A, Lear C, et al. FDA-Approved Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators Inhibit Ebola Virus Infection. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5: 190ra79–190ra79. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fan H, Du X, Zhang J, Zheng H, Lu X, Wu Q, et al. Selective inhibition of Ebola entry with selective estrogen receptor modulators by disrupting the endolysosomal calcium. Sci Rep-uk. 2017;7 10.1038/srep41226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Suarez T, Gomara M, Goni F, Mingarro I, Muga A, Perez-Paya E, et al. Calcium-dependent conformational changes of membrane-bound Ebola fusion peptide drive vesicle fusion. Febs Lett. 2003;535: 23 28. 10.1016/s0014-5793(02)03847-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stegmann T, Hoekstra D, Scherphof G, Wilschut J. Kinetics of pH-dependent fusion between influenza virus and liposomes. Biochemistry-us. 1985;24: 3107–3113. 10.1021/bi00334a006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang Z, Duckers H, Sullivan N, Sanchez A, Nabel E, Nabel G. Identification of the Ebola virus glycoprotein as the main viral determinant of vascular cell cytotoxicity and injury. Nat Med. 2000;6: 886 889. 10.1038/78645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Christensen KA, Myers JT, Swanson JA. pH-dependent regulation of lysosomal calcium in macrophages. J Cell Sci. 2002;115: 599–607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Das D, Govindan R, Nikić-Spiegel I, Krammer F, Lemke EA, Munro JB. Direct Visualization of the Conformational Dynamics of Single Influenza Hemagglutinin Trimers. Cell. 2018;174: 926 937.e12. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lee JE, Fusco ML, Hessell AJ, Oswald WB, Burton DR, Saphire E. Structure of the Ebola virus glycoprotein bound to an antibody from a human survivor. Nature. 2008;454: 177 182. 10.1038/nature07082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ito H, Watanabe S, Sanchez A, Whitt M, Kawaoka Y. Mutational analysis of the putative fusion domain of Ebola virus glycoprotein. Journal of virology. 1999;73: 8907 8912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zhao Y, Ren J, Harlos K, Jones DM, Zeltina A, Bowden TA, et al. Toremifene interacts with and destabilizes the Ebola virus glycoprotein. Nature. 2016;535: 169 172. 10.1038/nature18615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang H, Shi Y, Song J, Qi J, Lu G, Yan J, et al. Ebola Viral Glycoprotein Bound to Its Endosomal Receptor Niemann-Pick C1. Cell. 2016;164: 258 268. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Weissenhorn W, Carfí A, Lee K-H, Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Crystal Structure of the Ebola Virus Membrane Fusion Subunit, GP2, from the Envelope Glycoprotein Ectodomain. Mol Cell. 1998;2: 605–616. 10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80159-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Malashkevich VN, Schneider BJ, McNally ML, Milhollen MA, Pang JX, Kim PS. Core structure of the envelope glycoprotein GP2 from Ebola virus at 1.9-Å resolution. Proc National Acad Sci. 1999;96: 2662–2667. 10.1073/pnas.96.6.2662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nikić I, Girona G, Kang J, Paci G, Mikhaleva S, Koehler C, et al. Debugging Eukaryotic Genetic Code Expansion for Site-Specific Click-PAINT Super-Resolution Microscopy. Angewandte Chemie Int Ed. 2016;55: 16172 16176. 10.1002/anie.201608284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brecher M, Schornberg KL, Delos SE, Fusco ML, Saphire E, White JM. Cathepsin cleavage potentiates the Ebola virus glycoprotein to undergo a subsequent fusion-relevant conformational change. J Virol. 2012;86: 364 372. 10.1128/JVI.05708-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wang MK, Lim S-Y, Lee S, Cunningham JM. Biochemical Basis for Increased Activity of Ebola Glycoprotein in the 2013–16 Epidemic. Cell Host Microbe. 2017;21: 367 375. 10.1016/j.chom.2017.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Harrison SC. Viral membrane fusion. Virology. 2015;479-480C: 498 507. 10.1016/j.virol.2015.03.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dubé M, Rey FA, Kielian M. Rubella virus: first calcium-requiring viral fusion protein. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10: e1004530 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Durham ND, Howard AR, Govindan R, Senjobe F, Fels MJ, Diehl WE, et al. Real-time analysis of Individual Ebola glycoproteins reveals prefusion, entry-relevant conformations dynamics. Viruses. 2020;12: 103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Markosyan RM, Miao C, Zheng Y-M, Melikyan GB, Liu S-L, Cohen FS. Induction of Cell-Cell Fusion by Ebola Virus Glycoprotein: Low pH Is Not a Trigger. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12: e1005373 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Südhof TC, Rothman JE. Membrane Fusion: Grappling with SNARE and SM Proteins. Science. 2009;323: 474–477. 10.1126/science.1161748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yu I-M, Zhang W, Holdaway HA, Li L, Kostyuchenko VA, Chipman PR, et al. Structure of the immature dengue virus at low pH primes proteolytic maturation. Science. 2008;319: 1834 1837. 10.1126/science.1153264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gerasimenko JV, Tepikin AV, Petersen OH, Gerasimenko OV. Calcium uptake via endocytosis with rapid release from acidifying endosomes. Curr Biol. 1998;8: 1335–1338. 10.1016/s0960-9822(07)00565-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Albrecht T, Zhao Y, Nguyen T, Campbell RE, Johnson JD. Fluorescent biosensors illuminate calcium levels within defined beta-cell endosome subpopulations. Cell Calcium. 2015;57: 263–274. 10.1016/j.ceca.2015.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Schmied WH, Elsässer SJ, Uttamapinant C, Chin JW. Efficient Multisite Unnatural Amino Acid Incorporation in Mammalian Cells via Optimized Pyrrolysyl tRNA Synthetase/tRNA Expression and Engineered eRF1. J Am Chem Soc. 2014;136: 15577–83. 10.1021/ja5069728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cavrois M, Noronha C, Greene WC. A sensitive and specific enzyme-based assay detecting HIV-1 virion fusion in primary T lymphocytes. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20: 1151 1154. 10.1038/nbt745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Whitt MA. Generation of VSV pseudotypes using recombinant ΔG-VSV for studies on virus entry, identification of entry inhibitors, and immune responses to vaccines. J Virol Methods. 2010;169: 365 374. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2010.08.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Munro JB, Gorman J, Ma X, Zhou Z, Arthos J, Burton DR, et al. Conformational dynamics of single HIV-1 envelope trimers on the surface of native virions. Science. 2014;346: 759 763. 10.1126/science.1254426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Juette MF, Terry DS, Wasserman MR, tman R, Zhou Z, Zhao H, et al. Single-molecule imaging of non-equilibrium molecular ensembles on the millisecond timescale. Nat Methods. 2016;13: 341 344. 10.1038/nmeth.3769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lakowicz JR. Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Springer; 2006; [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lauren A Richardson

18 Sep 2019

Dear Dr Munro,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Conformational changes in the Ebola virus membrane fusion machine induced by pH, Ca2+, and receptor binding" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Sep 20 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Lauren A Richardson

21 Oct 2019

Dear Dr Munro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Conformational changes in the Ebola virus membrane fusion machine induced by pH, Ca2+, and receptor binding" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

As you will read, the reviewers found your study generally well done and were intrigued by the results. However, they do raise some points that will need to be addressed in a revision. Of particular note, they request functional experiments testing the reversibility of GP conformational changes observed in smFRET, better controlling the DiO mixing assay, and an improved explanation of the effects of GP labeling on infectivity. Additionally, the Academic Editor suggests caution when interpreting the functional relevance of the observed smFRET states, given the inherent difficultly in linking smFRET and lipid mixing results.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome resubmission of a much-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 for further evaluation by the reviewers.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

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.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Upon resubmission, the editors will assess your revision and if the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we will send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready to submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

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

Sincerely,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

Reviews

Reviewer #1:

Fusion stage of the entry of Ebola virus is a complex and still poorly understood process. Activation of viral fusogens in virus-carrying endosome depends on a number of factors, including cathepsin-mediated cleavage of envelope glycoprotein GP and Niemann-Pick C1 (NPC1) binding. It has also been suggested to depend on acidification and changes in the calcium concentration associated with maturation of endosomes. This study analyses conformational changes in fusogenic GP2 domain of GP using an elegant approach they have developed in their earlier work on flu hemagglutinin. The loss of initial conformation of GP2 is detected at a single molecule level by a single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET) imaging assay as a decrease in resonance energy transfer reflecting an increase in the distance between two fluorophores placed at positions that are close to each other in the initial conformation. Based on the smFRET data and a bulk assay that detects lipid mixing between DiO-labeled GP-pseudoviruses and liposomes as dequenching of DiO, the authors conclude that low pH and Ca2+ dependent reversible shifts of GP2 conformations to intermediate state(s) prime the protein for NPC1 binding dependent irreversible conformational change associated with fusion. While the results are mostly convincing, definitely novel and significant, and will be of importance for researchers working on entry stages of Ebola virus, and on fusion mediated by other protein fusogens, I do have a number of questions/suggestions. While the smFRET part of the work is very well designed, my questions are mostly related to a virus-liposome lipid mixing assay. I consider two of the major comments below as essential to support the current conclusions.

Major comments.

1) The DiO dequenching data are presented as the fold increase over initial fluorescence (F/F0). Liposome-based fluorescence dequenching fusion assays conventionally require application of a detergent at the end of the experiment to normalize the extent of the dequenching to the maximum dequenching with infinite dilution of the probe. Without it, we do not know the extent of DiO quenching in the viral particles prior to fusion and cannot evaluate the efficiency of the lipid mixing. Also, it appears that the extent of DiO dequenching is very very low (the largest increase is ~1.6 fold) comparing with what they had in the Cell paper for HA (Ref 35), where DiO fluorescence went from ~0 to 2000 in 150 s. Does it mean that GP2-mediated virus/liposome lipid mixing is much much less efficient than for flu? If this is the case, it is essential to verify that dequenching cannot be explained by fusion-unrelated lipid probe transfer.

2) The dependence of the GP2 restructuring on Ca is one of the most intriguing features of the process. The effects of TPC inhibitors on Ebola virus infection and lipid mixing inhibition by 1 mM and higher concentrations of Ca on the lipid mixing suggests that fusogenic restructuring of GP2 depends on decrease rather than increase in Ca. In this scenario millimolar concentrations of Ca in the extracellular environment act as one of the blocks for premature restructuring and inactivation of the protein. Have you checked the reversibility of low pH and Ca effects in the context of virions and functional experiments as an inactivation? Do you observe an irreversible or reversible loss of fusogenic activity of the virus for higher concentrations of Ca (S2B Fig.), especially, prior to NPC1?

Minor comments

1) I am confused by what appears to be a discrepancy between the main text and the legend to S1 Fig. The text states “Pseudovirions labeled with DiO maintained approximately 75% infectivity as compared to unlabeled pseudovirions” and the legend to the S1 Fig. states “Infectivity of GFP-expressing VSV particles pseudotyped with GP or GP*, or labeled with the lipophilic fluorophore DiD, which is spectrally distinct from GFP and chemically similar to the DiO fluorophore used in the hemifusion assay.”. Have the authors examined the infectivity for virions labeled with DiO (as in functional experiments) or with DiD?

2) I suggest the authors to refer to their DiO dequenching assay as lipid mixing assay rather than hemifusion assay. In the absence of other assays, we cannot distinguish hemifusion from complete fusion here because complete fusion would also result in lipid mixing and DiO dequenching.

3) Line 411: “virus and liposomes were co-incubated at room temperature for 5 minutes to enable virus-liposome binding at pH 7.5.” What binding mechanism you have in mind?

4) I am unclear on whether the authors used 1-oleoyl-2-palmitoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine as stated in line 403 (Avanti # 850457) or POPC (line 403) (1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-glycero-3-phosphocholine) (Avanti #850475).

--------------

Reviewer #2:

Das, D. K. et al present a thorough study of the role of pH, Ca2+, and target receptor binding for the Ebola virus glycoprotein spike. These authors use a smFRET approach to estimate the conformational dynamics of a domain in the spike under differing ligated conditions for the aforementioned species. The results demonstrate that these ions and the sNPC1 receptor fragment are required to yield a low FRET state, a conditions the authors speculate is the post-fusion state based upon atomic structures of the two states. This elegant and mechanistically insightful study should certainly be published after addressing this reviewer’s concerns.

Major points:

1) This reviewer envisions the sequence of events for GP encounter between the relevant players discussed in this study to occur in this order: Lower pH, lower Ca2+, additional pH reduction, and then a final encounter between the NPC1 luminal domain in a late endosome/lysosome (similar to the mechanistic model cartoon). The author’s experimental setup, however, appears to create a steady state with the addition of sNPC1 to GP (and variants) and then observe the change in smFRET relative to pH modulation or steady-state Ca2+ addition. Have the authors attempted to perform a time series smFRET measurement by perfusing in sNPC1 under acidic conditions and 0.5 mM Ca2+? This would help to rectify the proposed linear cartoon model, suggesting that low pH and Ca2+ are required a priori to initiate NPC1 receptor engagement. If this experiment were performed and the resulting occupancy distributions were nearly the same, this would suggest that the mechanism does not require a specific order of events, simply all of these ingredients are required.

2) The data in Figure 1 should be fit to a model and quantitative estimates should be extracted to report relative changes in rates of fusion compared with a standard condition (e.g. sNPC1 + Ca2+).

3) This reviewer wonders if the MD simulation of probes on GP can be used to extract the κ2 value for the dye pair orientation as a function of time to estimate a more accurate, albeit a simulated, explicit distance measurement. Does the distribution of dipolar angles resemble the often abused 2/3 random orientation value for κ2. It is hard to tell from the centroid dots how the dipoles are oriented in the cartoon. If the authors were to extract these values and estimate the mean κ2, would the FRET efficiency convert to distances that resemble those speculated in the paper?

Minor points:

1) For all figures displaying the fractional occupancy of a state via smFRET, it should be explained in the methods how the error in occupancy is calculated. Since this parameter is a fractional value and the fit to a multimodal distribution should have only one error, it is not clear how the error is propagated to these plots.

2) Quantitative color maps should be includes for all smFRET probability distributions. It is difficult to interpret the gradient changes in the time-lapse measurements.

3) Lines 125-126, has anyone measured the luminal concentrations of Ca2+ in late endosomes/lysosomes (the site of entry for EboV)? If so, what is the average molarity? Does this compare well with the 0.5 mM used in the study?

4) The authors should add a reference to line 152 to link the audience to what is known about the epitope of the KZ52 antibody.

--------------

Reviewer #3:

The Das et al. manuscript studies Ebola GP fusion protein mediated membrane fusion using pseudovirons. They use a liposome fusion fluorescence dequenching method to reveal membrane hemifusion and single molecule FRET approach to reveal Ebola GP fusion protein conformational changes, as they previously did with HIV and influenza. The authors use the liposome assay to conclude that that low pH, receptor binding, and calcium exposure act in concert to induce the most efficient fusion activity, as is generally believed for Ebola from previous studies. They use the single molecule FRET method to reveal transitions from a prefusion configuration with high FRET to a low FRET state, which is considered to reflect an on-pathway fusogenic state. Correlations among hemifusion lipid mixing signals and single molecule FRET signals under various experimental conditions are used to support the interpretation of these FRET states as fusion-related conformations. The authors map the populations of events with the different FRET signals under several conditions including the removal of the glycan cap, receptor presence as well as pH and calcium exposure. Controls with different divalent ions, inactivating antibodies and drugs used to inhibit Ebola are included, strengthening the arguments. The most novel finding in the work is identification of reversibility in the low pH + calcium induced conformational change (transition to low FRET) that is made permanent in the presence of the cognate receptor. Finally, there is a general discussion of a model for Ebola membrane fusion in the context of existing models for influenza and HIV.

The manuscript is clear and the experiments are expertly performed. The work represents a high level of technical sophistication. The topic of Ebola membrane fusion is important and interesting to a wide array of scientists. This approach to mechanistic studies of virus phenomena is exciting and likely to be enduring in the field. The model of several synergistic interactions regulating virus fusion and entry into cells is innovative. Nevertheless, there are a few concerns with the work that are essential to address.

1 It would be useful to confirm the observation of reversibility of the transition from prefusion configuration to fusogentic state (in the absence of receptor) in the liposome assay, if possible. Perhaps experiments with various sequences of pre-exposure to changes in pH/calcium with or without receptor present, and then assay for hemifusion competence in the liposome assay would be useful. Such experiments could be highlighted as supporting the existence of this reversible state that is on pathway supporting membrane fusion.

2 What is the labeling efficiency of the proteins in the single molecule FRET studies? Maybe this is hard to determine, but it is important for the infectivity and fusion validation work (Figure S1). Lines 151-155 describe measurements of labeled sample infectivity and fusion efficiency as ranging 60%-90% of unlabeled or wild-type. Labeling efficiency could correlate with these effects, suggesting the proteins lacking dyes could account for the active fraction of the population.

3 These functionality controls (Figure S1) are also difficult to interpret given that lines 436-440 mention that the virus particles here had 50 fold excess of wild-type GP over the labeling mutant GP*. Does this mean each particle has more wild-type fusion proteins than labeled fusion proteins? Note line 158 mentions pseudovirions were formed with a single GP* protomer among the native distribution of wild-type GP, and line 341 in methods mentions full-length GP0* was translated at approximately 5-10% efficiency as compared to wild-type GP. These statements suggest this is the correct interpretation, which then questions the relevance of the controls – an excess of wild-type, unlabeled GP protein will mask any failure of the FRET reporting GP* in the event that the FRET modifications rendered the GP* or GP*+fluorophore protein not functional for fusion or infection. This information is important to the paper, but as presented is confusing and concerning.

4 The authors also observe a FRET event near 0.52 that is not claimed to be directly related to the pre-activation or fusogenic states. This state does not change under most conditions: line 170: “intermediate-FRET state (0.52 ± 0.09), which did not respond to changes in pH” or in figure 3 the intermediate-FRET state does not change with calcium either. That FRET 0.52 state is similar in all conditions and all mutants in figure 3 (20-30% populations). The authors only comment once to address possible ways to interpret it, saying near line 254 – “The intermediate-FRET state may reflect a more localized rearrangement of the fusion loop that precedes its large-scale displacement”. Is it reasonable that this FRET 0.52 state is related to anything functional if this state does not change with pH or calcium? The authors should try to understand this state more completely.

--------------

Reviewer #4:

The authors have created a construct of the Ebola GP protein that allows Cy3 to be attached to one site, and Cy5 to another. If there are changes in the distance between these two dyes, their dipolar orientation, the dielectric constant of the medium between them, or other changes to the electronic configuration of either dye, there will be a change in the FRET signal. They measure the both donor and acceptor fluorescence from single molecules as a function of time after changing pH (before they bleach) when the proteins are expressed on pseudoviruses and added to liposomes bearing receptor. When the pH is changed, as modulated by Ca2+, proteolytic cleavage, or addition of soluble receptor, the average FRET can change. These changes are categorized into three states for which gaussian distributions are reported, normalized to these three states. In addition, lipid dequenching is measured as a function of time with these same viron under conditions varied as above, as a measure of fusion or hemifusion.

There is much good that this paper contains, with a lot of very good and careful work. I cannot say the same about the writing or even the final conclusion. Instead of leaving the interpretation of data for the Discussion, they intersperse it into the Results, making a very complicated first paragraph with not much interpretation of results, or a summary of the main experimental findings. They can certainly propose a model, but first they need to discuss their results. They would be well advised to move all interpretation into the Discussion.

End of Abstract and lines 270-276: It is not clear that the data here suggests protection of internalized Ebola in early entry until a “more permissive environment” is reached – presumably maturing of early endosomes. The one paper I found (Albrecht et al. Cell Calcium 57:263-274, 2015) with good endosomal targeting and genetic-encoded sensor detection of endosomal Ca++ suggests the opposite, since endosomal Ca++ starts below 5 µM and falls even lower with maturation. Thus lines 270 – 276 seem speculative as there are no experiments in this paper showing the actual Ca++ in the endosome is actually protective, and is represented within the ranges of the entire biphasic response to Ca++. The cited (Fan et al.) paper on endosomal calcium and SERM and Ebola indicates that chelating Ca blocks fusion, but even the SERM which also block Ebola only double Ca++ release, but they have to somehow bring endosomal Ca++ from 2 µM to over 1 mM??? So the biphasic nature of the Ca response is not sufficiently fleshed out in this paper to end the first paragraph of the Discussion with this statement. Furthermore, it seems that cholesterol is a better candidate for SERM action.

Lines 300-302. The last sentence of the paper is very weak. These are not novel ideas and come across as obvious given the involvement of many receptor/fusogen binding reactions that potentiate conformational changes downstream of binding. Surely with such great stuff they can do better. They make it clear in the introduction that far too little is known, and after reading this manuscript I am sure that their hypothesis in line 180-182 is very likely a reasonable and testable hypothesis. This is a solid step forward: “According to this

180 interpretation, acidification promotes a conformational change in GP, which releases the

181 fusion loop from the hydrophobic cleft in the neighboring protomer, perhaps facilitating

182 its interaction with the target membrane.” It can be an important concluding model, as fleshed out with their reversibility data vis-à-vis the other intermediates.

Line 246. Holistic is going a bit too far for my taste. It is not clear what is the effect of other factors. A new assay is devised for protein conformational change and lipid mixing is measured in permutations of Ca, pH, for two constructs with and without soluble receptor. Not exactly all the interacting factors are integrated into one model. Nor is it particularly surprising that pH causes a conformational change in a viral fusion protein. Moreover, terms appear like ‘physiological’ which indicate native structures, but in this report the work is done with engineered constructs, usually derivatized both genetically and chemically, and synthetic liposomes.

Other issues:

1. DiO dequenching is a lipid-mixing assay that occurs in both hemifusion and fusion. For determination of hemifusion or fusion a content mixing assay is also required. Also, lipid dequenching assays for lipid mixing are usually followed by a detergent step to determine maximal dequenching. Then the % dequenching is plotted. I think that gives a better sense of the efficiency or robustness. Here it is relative, so it is not clear what fraction of the viron give lipid mixing at 1.6 F/F0. I could be 1 % or 100%.

2. Lines 129-131- “…cannot rule out…does not proceed...” Double negative, does it mean ‘we rule out that it does proceed’? I think this indicates the above problem: hemifusion is the merger of membranes without fusion pore formation, so what is measured here is lipid mixing. It is an aspect of both hemifusion and fusion. It should be called what it is, and it should not be called either hemifusion or fusion, as neither is shown at this point. Usually, the interpretation of the result is left for the discussion section. Changing the standard definition of hemifusion leads to awkward sentences like this one. By calling the observable ‘lipid mixing’, the authors can use an understandable sentence like:

"At present, we cannot determine what fraction of the lipid mixing corresponds to full fusion or hemifusion."

3. Line 476. There are at least 3 SPARTAN software packages on the web, but the first 40 or so references to SPARTAN software are to another package. I see the correct citation as requested but I do not see on online access to the custom-written scripts. As this is not open sourced but licensed I suggest that the url be provided in parentheses after the SPARTAN (https://www.scottcblanchardlab.com/software) and the custom written scripts be available to readers.

4. Line 752 - There is no such journal ‘Sci Rep-uk’. The citation is ‘Scientific Reports, 7:41226’ However PLOS wants to abbreviate or format it.

5. Figure 1. ‘Efficiencies are different’. It is not clear, since the red signal continues to grow, if lipid mixing efficiency is actually different, one would have to wait. Clearly the rate of lipid mixing is different, but that is what you get when you compare two time points, not the extent of lipid mixing (I assume you mean extent by 'efficiency'.

6. Figure 3, 4, etc. There is something odd about the plots. By definition, FRET goes from 0 to 1. Yet this FRET goes above 1. How can that be?

7. Figure 4. Maybe the phrasing "not predominantly high..." means "not all the FRET came back to the high FRET state". You probably want to state in the figure legend that ‘time’ in the figure (in seconds) refers to the time after the stop flow step and not the incubation times.

8. Fig. 5: I have a hard time understanding this cartoon until I saw it was a model. I thought the authors were summarizing their results (not a bad idea, because there are lots of great results). The experiments first mixed the liposomes and viruses and Ca, and only later added low pH. The npc1 was added to the liposome virus mixture. So all the data just what happens in seconds after adding acid, whereas the cartoon in Fig. 5 shows H+ and Ca++ added before the NPC1.

9. Line 406. What cation in the phosphate buffer for making liposomes?

10. Line 409. What excess of soluble receptor? Was it washed off before liposomes were used? How do we know it was the receptor on the liposome that made for lipid mixing and not the excess?

Decision Letter 2

Lauren A Richardson

30 Dec 2019

Dear Dr Munro,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Conformational changes in the Ebola virus membrane fusion machine induced by pH, Ca2+, and receptor binding" for publication in PLOS Biology.

The Academic Editor and I have now assessed your revision and we're delighted to let you know that we're satisfied with your manuscript. The Academic Editor does note one concern, which is that in Figure 2A, which is supposed to depict a pseudovirus with GP glycoproteins protruding from the viral membrane, the viral membrane is not visible and GPs appear to float in the space. We will very likely publish your study, assuming you are willing to address this concerns and make the final edits needed to meet our production and data requirements.

Before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that 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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. 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 as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

*Submitting Your Revision*

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication. **Please deposit all structures and list accession codes in the Data Statement.**

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

1, 3A-C, 4A-C, S1AB, S2A-D, S3, S6, S7, S8, S9B

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

Decision Letter 3

Lauren A Richardson

23 Jan 2020

Dear Dr. Munro,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr. Gregory Melikyan, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. 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.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Krystal Farmer,

Development Editor

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Lauren Richardson,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Functional evaluation of modified pseudovirions containing EBOV GP.

    (A) Infectivity of GFP-expressing VSV particles pseudotyped with GP or GP* or labeled with the lipophilic fluorophore DiD. DiD was used in the infectivity measurements to evaluate the effect of a lipophilic fluorophore because it is spectrally distinct from GFP and chemically similar to the DiO fluorophore used in the lipid mixing assay. DiO excitation overlaps with that of GFP and thus could not be used in this assay. Infectivity is normalized to wild-type GP with an unlabeled virion. (B) Viral fusion was measured using a Blam-based virus entry assay (Materials and methods). HIV pseudovirions containing either GP, GP*, or GP*-Cy3/Cy5, and in the absence or presence of antibody KZ52. For the purpose of evaluating the functionality of GP* and GP*-Cy3-Cy5, pseudovirions were not formed with excess wild-type GP as done for smFRET imaging experiments. Pseudovirions were preincubated with 0.5 mM CaCl2 where indicated. Some enhancement of fusion was observed following the preincubation with CaCl2 indicating that the endosomal Ca2+ concentration in the target cells used here may be not be optimal for GP-mediated fusion. All GP variants were efficiently inhibited by KZ52, confirming that the TCO* residues do not perturb the global conformation of GP. Data are presented as the average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard deviation. EBOV, Ebola virus; GFP, green fluorescent protein; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; smFRET, single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer; VSV, vesicular stomatitis virus.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Proteolytic cleavage and NPC1 binding, and physiological Ca2+ are required for virus-liposome lipid mixing.

    (A) As described in Fig 1, fluorescently labeled GP-containing virions were incubated with liposomes at the indicated pH and in the absence (red) or presence (blue) of Ca2+. No fluorescence dequenching was observed in the presence of NPC1 prior to removal of the glycan cap, regardless of the presence of Ca2+ or the pH. (B) In contrast to the acceleration observed in the presence of Ca2+, only slow dequenching was seen at pH 5.2 with NPC1 in the presence of 0.5 mM MgCl2 or ZnCl2. (C) Equivalent levels of dequenching were observed across a range of physiological Ca2+ concentrations (0.1–0.5 mM) at pH 5.2 with NPC1. However, Ca2+ concentrations of at least 1 mM led to a loss of dequenching. (D, top) Dequenching observed for pseudovirions containing GPΔmuc that were incubated at pH 4.5 for 10 min, followed by removal of the glycan cap with thermolysin. (Bottom) Dequenching observed for pseudovirions that were incubated after glycan cap removal. The same data are presented in the absence and presence of Ca2+, as indicated. In all panels, data are presented as the percentage of maximal dequenching seen upon addition of 1% triton X-100 and as an average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard deviation. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Ca2+ channel antagonists and a selective estrogen receptor modulator inhibit GP-mediated virus entry.

    Pseudovirus infectivity was tested in the presence of compounds known to affect endosomal Ca2+ (Materials and methods). Infectivity is presented as a percentage of DMSO control. Data are presented as the average of 3 to 6 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard errors. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Experimental protocol for formation of pseudovirions containing a single GP* protomer.

    See Materials and methods for details. GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Read through of 2 amber stop codons leads to generation of full-length GPΔmuc.

    (A) Wild-type GPΔmuc and GP0 efficiently incorporate into virions formed with the HIV core. Western blot demonstrating efficient furin-mediated cleavage of GP0. The HIV capsid protein, p24, serves as a loading control. (B) Translation of full-length GP* requires the presence of NESPylRSAF/tRNAPyl, the TCO* ncAA, and the dominant negative E55D mutant of eRF1. eRF1, eukaryotic release factor 1; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; TCO*, trans-cyclooct-2-ene-L-lysine.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. MD simulation of fluorophore dynamics indicates an average interfluorophore distance of approximately 33 Å.

    A molecular model of GP*-Cy3-Cy5 was generated based on the prefusion structure of GP (PDB accession code 5JQ3; Materials and methods). The histogram of distances between the centers of mass of the 2 fluorophores is shown. The average interfluorophore distance was 35 ± 4 Å, consistent with the 0.95-FRET state that predominates for GPΔmuc at pH 7. Models of the Cy3 and Cy5 fluorophores are shown with the calculated transition dipoles used to calculate the orientation factor κ2, which is 2/3 for freely tumbling fluorophores. The fluorophore orientations determined in the 50-ns trajectory led to κ 2 = 0.645 ± 0.320, indicating that on average the fluorophores are freely tumbling. Their relative rotational orientations vary considerably over time scales that are far shorter than our experimental time resolution of 40 ms. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; MD, molecular dynamics.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. The uncleaved precursor GP0 does not transition to the low-FRET state at acidic pH.

    Contour plots and FRET histograms displaying the FRET distribution from the population of individual GP0 molecules at the indicated pH. Histograms are overlaid with Gaussian distributions as in Figs 24. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Acidic pH increases the extent of NPC1 binding to GP.

    Pseudovirions containing GPCL were incubated with FLAG-tagged sNPC1-C across a range of pHs. Following incubation, excess sNPC1-C was removed with neutral pH buffer. The extent of binding was determined in an ELISA assay using an anti-FLAG antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (Materials and methods). Greater binding is seen at acidic pH, which may be due to acidic pH facilitating transition of GP to a conformation optimal for NPC1 binding. Data are presented as the average of 3 independent measurements, with error bars reflecting the standard error. ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; NPC1, Niemann-Pick C1; sNPC1-C, soluble domain C of NPC1.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. EDTA reverses the conformational change induced by Ca2+.

    (A) Contour plots and FRET histograms for GPΔmuc and GPCL acquired under the indicated conditions. FRET data are displayed as in Figs 24. N indicates the number of FRET traces compiled into each contour plot and histogram. (B) Occupancies in the high- (blue), intermediate- (orange), and low-FRET (yellow) states determined through HMM analysis. Occupancies in the 3 FRET states are normalized such that their sum equals 100%. EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; FRET, Förster resonance energy transfer; GP, EBOV envelope glycoprotein; GPΔmuc, GP with the mucin-like domain deleted; HMM, hidden Markov modeling.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data. Numeric data for each figure panel.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw Image. Original images for all Western blots.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: GP-activation_plos-bio_Response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: GP-activation_plos-bio_Response.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES