Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Intramembrane proteolysis promotes trafficking of hepatitis C virus core protein to lipid droplets

2002; Springer Nature; Volume: 21; Issue: 15 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1093/emboj/cdf414

1460-2075

John McLauchlan, Marius K. Lemberg, Graham Hope, Bruno Martoglio,

Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research

Article1 August 2002free access Intramembrane proteolysis promotes trafficking of hepatitis C virus core protein to lipid droplets John McLauchlan John McLauchlan MRC Virology Unit, Division of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow, G11 5JR UK Search for more papers by this author Marius K. Lemberg Marius K. Lemberg Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ETH Hoenggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author Graham Hope Graham Hope MRC Virology Unit, Division of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow, G11 5JR UK Search for more papers by this author Bruno Martoglio Corresponding Author Bruno Martoglio Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ETH Hoenggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author John McLauchlan John McLauchlan MRC Virology Unit, Division of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow, G11 5JR UK Search for more papers by this author Marius K. Lemberg Marius K. Lemberg Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ETH Hoenggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author Graham Hope Graham Hope MRC Virology Unit, Division of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow, G11 5JR UK Search for more papers by this author Bruno Martoglio Corresponding Author Bruno Martoglio Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ETH Hoenggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland Search for more papers by this author Author Information John McLauchlan1, Marius K. Lemberg2, Graham Hope1 and Bruno Martoglio 2 1MRC Virology Unit, Division of Virology, University of Glasgow, Church Street, Glasgow, G11 5JR UK 2Institute of Biochemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ETH Hoenggerberg, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] The EMBO Journal (2002)21:3980-3988https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf414 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the major causative pathogen associated with liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The virus has a positive-sense RNA genome encoding a single polyprotein with the virion components located in the N-terminal portion. During biosynthesis of the polyprotein, an internal signal sequence between the core protein and the envelope protein E1 targets the nascent polypeptide to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane for translocation of E1 into the ER. Following membrane insertion, the signal sequence is cleaved from E1 by signal peptidase. Here we provide evidence that after cleavage by signal peptidase, the signal peptide is further processed by the intramembrane-cleaving protease SPP that promotes the release of core protein from the ER membrane. Core protein is then free for subsequent trafficking to lipid droplets. This study represents an example of a potential role for intramembrane proteolysis in the maturation of a viral protein. Introduction Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause of liver disease that can culminate in cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (Kuo et al., 1989). The genome of HCV consists of a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA molecule that has a single open reading frame encoding a polyprotein of ∼3000 amino acids (Grakoui et al., 1993). The polyprotein can be broadly separated into two regions; the N-terminal third encodes the structural components of the virion (core and two envelope glycoproteins E1 and E2; Figure 1A) with the remaining two-thirds comprising the non-structural proteins (NS2-NS5B; for reviews, see Clarke, 1997; Lindenbach and Rice, 2001). A small hydrophobic protein, p7, which lies between E2 and NS2, may also be a virion component. During protein translation, the mature viral products are generated from the polyprotein by a series of cleavage events. The structural components are produced by cellular proteases, while maturation of the non-structural proteins requires virus-encoded proteases. Figure 1.Analysis of core protein processing in vitro. (A) Diagram of the N-terminal portion of the HCV polyprotein comprising the structural proteins, core, E1 and E2. Sig. seq. indicates the signal sequence at the core-E1 junction; TM, transmembrane regions of the envelope proteins. (B) Diagram of core-E1 constructs used for the in vitro assays. Open bars indicate the hydrophobic region of the signal sequence; arrows, the signal peptidase cleavage site; diamonds, the N-glycosylation sites in E1. (C) Synthesis and processing of SP-E1/100 by in vitro translation in the presence of rough microsomes (lanes 2–4), acceptor tripeptide to inhibit N-glycosylation (lanes 3 and 4), and SPP inhibitor (Z-LL)2- ketone (lane 4). Dots indicate 1x, 2x and 3x glycosylated E1/100; lane 5 shows the reference signal peptide (SP). (D) Synthesis and processing of core-E1/100 by in vitro translation in the presence of rough microsomes (lanes 2–5), acceptor tripepetide to inhibit N-glycosylation (lanes 3 and 5) and SPP inhibitor (lanes 4 and 5). Dots indicate the position of glycosylated E1/100 (E1/100g). The panel to the right shows a corresponding western blot for lanes 2–5 probed with a core-specific antibody. Download figure Download PowerPoint Core protein, which is considered to constitute the virion capsid, is synthesized as the most N-terminal component of the polyprotein and is followed by the signal sequence of the E1 envelope glycoprotein (Figure 1A). The signal sequence targets the nascent polypeptide chain to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane and induces translocation of E1 into the ER lumen. There, cleavage by signal peptidase liberates the N-terminal end of E1, leaving core protein anchored in the ER membrane by the signal peptide. Maturation of core protein is considered to involve at least one additional cleavage event within or immediately N-terminal to the signal sequence by an unidentified microsomal protease (Santolini et al., 1994; Hussy et al., 1996; Moradpour et al., 1996; Liu et al., 1997; Yasui et al., 1998). Signal sequences play a key role in the biosynthesis of secretory and membrane proteins. In eukaryotic cells, they target newly synthesized proteins to the ER membrane for entry into the secretory pathway (Walter and Johnson, 1994). Thereafter, signal sequences are usually cleaved from the pre-protein by signal peptidase (Evans et al., 1986). Recent findings indicated that some signal peptides are subsequently cleaved by signal peptide peptidase (SPP), a presenilin-type intramembrane-cleaving aspartic protease located in the ER membrane (Weihofen et al., 2002). N-terminal portions of processed signal peptides are released into the cytosol, and some are suspected to promote post-targeting functions in the cell (Martoglio and Dobberstein, 1998; Lemberg et al., 2001). The discovery that intramembrane proteolysis by SPP promotes the release of signal peptide fragments from ER membranes prompted us to investigate whether this mechanism is utilized for the processing of HCV core protein. Results The signal sequence at the HCV core-E1 junction is a substrate for subsequent cleavage by signal peptidase and SPP Previous in vitro studies have indicated that the HCV core protein is processed in the presence of microsomal membranes, suggesting proteolysis by signal peptidase and/or other microsomal proteases (Santolini et al., 1994; Hussy et al., 1996; Moradpour et al., 1996; Liu et al., 1997; Yasui et al., 1998). This processing event was re-examined first in an in vitro translation/translocation system (Weihofen et al., 2000). Two substrates were employed (Figure 1B). One contained the C-terminal 30 residues of the core protein including the signal sequence of E1, and the N-terminal 100 amino acid residues of E1 (SP-E1/100). The second substrate consisted of the entire core protein, the signal sequence and the N-terminal 100 residues of E1 (core-E1/100). These polypeptides were synthesized in vitro in the presence of ER-derived rough microsomes and [35S]methionine (Martoglio et al., 1998). Microsomes were subsequently isolated and analysed for retention of radiolabelled translation products. Translation of SP-E1/100 mRNA in the presence of microsomes yielded two products in addition to precursor protein (Figure 1C): first, an E1/100 species, with lower molecular weight than precursor protein, indicating cleavage of the signal peptide by signal peptidase at residue 191, and secondly, a pair of slower migrating proteins that did not appear in the presence of glycosylation inhibitor N-benzoyl-Asn-Leu-Thr-methyamide and thus represented glycosylated E1/100 peptides (Figure 1C, compare lanes 2 and 3). The presence of glycosylated products indicated translocation of E1/100 into the microsomes. The released signal peptide, which should have an apparent molecular weight of ∼4 kDa and co-migrate with in vitro translated reference signal peptide, was barely detectable, suggesting that it had been further processed and released from the membrane. Previously, we have reported that signal peptides can be processed by SPP, a reaction that is blocked by (Z-LL)2-ketone (Weihofen et al., 2000). On addition of the inhibitor, the signal peptide generated from SP-E1/100 was readily detected, and co-migrated with the reference peptide indicating that cleavage by SPP had been blocked (Figure 1C, lane 4). These results demonstrate that the signal sequence at the junction of core-E1 functions as a typical ER targeting signal and is a substrate for both signal peptidase and SPP. We next assayed the function of the signal sequence at the core-E1 junction in the context of the entire core protein. Translation of core-E1/100 in the presence of microsomes yielded several products including a non-translocated precursor (core-E1/100), and a 12 kDa product that corresponded to unglycosylated E1/100, generated through cleavage by signal peptidase at residue 191 (Figure 1D, lane 2). Two other major bands migrated with apparent molecular weights of 21 and 19 kDa. To identify these products, reactions were either performed in the presence of acceptor tripeptide to inhibit N-glycosylation, or (Z-LL)2-ketone to inhibit processing by SPP, or both. Addition of acceptor tripeptide reduced the intensity of the 21 kDa species while the amount of E1/100 increased (Figure 1D, lanes 3 and 5). This indicated that the product at 21 kDa contained glycosylated E1/100. Upon addition of SPP inhibitor, the 19 kDa product disappeared, suggesting that it might be processed core protein. We next analysed where core protein migrated on the gel by western blot analysis with a core-specific antibody (Figure 1D, compare corresponding lanes in left and right panels). When no SPP inhibitor was added (Figure 1D, right panel, lanes 2 and 3), two core species were recognized that corresponded to the 21 and 19 kDa products described above. Their migration was unaffected by the addition of acceptor tripeptide, but production of the 19 kDa species was abolished in the presence of SPP inhibitor (Figure 1D right panel, compare lanes 2 and 3 with 4 and 5). From these results, we conclude that the 21 kDa species is a core product generated by cleavage by signal peptidase at residue 191 and thus contains the signal peptide at the C-terminus. The 19 kDa product results from cleavage at the signal peptide by SPP. Together with the findings presented above, these data indicate that the signal peptide at the core-E1 junction is first cleaved by signal peptidase and subsequently processed by SPP. Mutations within the signal peptide block SPP cleavage in vitro and in tissue culture cells Intramembrane proteolysis of signal peptides is abolished when helix-breaking and -bending residues in the trans membrane region are replaced by leucines or valines (Lemberg et al., 2001). Residues Ala180 and Ser183Cys184 were therefore replaced by Val and LeuVal, respectively (Figure 2A), and the resulting signal peptide mutant (spmt) was tested for protein targeting, translocation, cleavage by signal peptidase and processing by SPP. In vitro translation of spmtSP-E1/100 mRNA in the presence of microsomes and acceptor tripeptide revealed that identical levels of E1/100 were produced as compared with the substrate containing the wild-type (wt) signal sequence (Figure 2B, compare lanes 2 and 3 with 6 and 7). Hence, the substitutions in the signal sequence did not affect targeting, translocation and signal peptidase cleavage of the protein resulting from the spmt construct. However, the mutant signal peptide that had been cleaved from the precursor was not processed, and remained associated with the membrane irrespective of whether SPP inhibitor was added or not (Figure 2B and C). This showed that the mutations abolished processing of the core-E1 signal peptide by SPP in vitro. Figure 2.Mutations affecting processing of the core-E1 signal peptide. (A) Illustration of the mutations in the transmembrane region (underlined) of the signal sequence at the core-E1 junction. Exchanged residues in the mutant, spmt, are indicated. (B) In vitro translation and processing of SP-E1/100 (wt, lanes 1–3) and spmtSP-E1/100 (spmt, lanes 5–7) in the presence of rough microsomes and inhibitor of glycosylation (lanes 2, 3, 6 and 7), and SPP inhibitor (lanes 3 and 7). Lanes 4 and 8 show the respective reference signal peptide (SP). (C) Quantification of signal peptide processing using the IQMac v1.2 software (Molecular Dynamics). Grey bars indicate the relative amount of signal peptide obtained in lanes 2 and 6 (no SPP inhibitor) compared with the amount obtained in lanes 3 and 7, respectively, where SPP was inhibited (set to 0% processing). Dark bars indicate the efficiency of processing obtained with the core-E1/100 constructs [(D); lanes 3 wt and spmt]. Relative processing efficiencies were determined accordingly by comparing the amount of processed core protein in lane 3 with that obtained in the presence of SPP inhibitor (lane 4) of the respective panel. Each value was calculated from three independent experiments; the amounts of signal peptide were corrected for variations in translocated E1/100 (for SP-E1/100 constructs). (D) Comparison of core protein produced in cells expressing CE1E2 (wt and spmt) (lane 2) with core protein generated by in vitro translation of core-E1/100 (wt and spmt) in the presence of rough microsomes (lanes 3 and 4) and SPP inhibitor (lane 4). Lanes 1 and 5 show in vitro translated reference peptides corresponding to the N-terminal 179 and 191 residues of the HCV polyprotein, respectively. Dots indicate processed core protein. Note that the wt proteins (left panel) were resolved on Tris–glycine acrylamide gels, which did not resolve spmt proteins of 179 and 191 residues. The latter were analysed on Tris–bicine gels (right panel), where the 191 residue reference peptide showed greater mobility than the shorter 179 residue peptide. After electrophoresis, proteins were transferred to PVDF membranes and probed with a core-specific antibody. Download figure Download PowerPoint We next tested the effect of the mutations in the signal sequence on the processing of core protein in tissue culture cells to verify that the above data were not restricted to the in vitro system. The signal peptide mutations were therefore transferred into the Semliki Forest virus (SFV) construct pSF/CE1E2, which encodes the core-E1-E2 polyprotein (CE1E2). Fragmentation of this portion of the HCV polyprotein relies solely on microsomal proteases (Lindenbach and Rice, 2001). Upon maturation, both E1 and E2 are retained at the membrane through transmembrane domains at their C-termini (Cocquerel et al., 1998, 1999; Flint and McKeating, 1999). Extracts from cells electroporated with mRNA coding for CE1E2 and CspmtE1E2, respectively, were first examined by western blot analysis alongside corresponding products obtained from in vitro translation/translocation reactions with core-E1/100 mRNA (wt and spmt). When wt CE1E2 was expressed in cells, mature core protein was obtained and migrated with a reference peptide of 179 residues (Figure 2D, left panel, compare lanes 1 and 2). The in vitro experiments yielded two core protein species that migrated with reference peptides of 191 and 179 residues, respectively (Figure 2D, left panel, lane 3). The 191 residue product originates from cleavage by signal peptidase at Ala191. Production of the 179 residue species is indicative of further processing in the transmembrane region of the signal peptide. The latter product did not appear in the presence of (Z-LL)2-ketone, indicating inhibition of cleavage by SPP (Figure 2D, left panel, compare lanes 3 and 4). Co-migration of core products of 179 amino acids, generated both in tissue culture cells and in vitro, was indicative of cleavage of the HCV polyprotein by SPP in both systems. When CspmtE1E2 was expressed in cells, the resulting core protein co-migrated with the 191 residue reference peptide (Figure 2D, right panel, compare lanes 2 and 5). This core protein species was also exclusively obtained in vitro, irrespective of whether SPP inhibitor was added or not, demonstrating that the mutations abolished signal peptide processing both in vitro and in tissue culture cells (Figure 2D, right panel, compare lanes 3 and 4). From all the above comparative data, we concluded that proteolysis occurs within the signal peptide at the core-E1 junction, and that the signal peptide is a substrate for cleavage by SPP in a cellular environment. Disruption of signal peptide processing blocks trafficking of core protein to lipid droplets A defining feature of core protein in mammalian cells after processing from the HCV polyprotein is its association with cytosolic lipid droplets (Barba et al., 1997). Wt and spmt versions of core protein were therefore expressed in baby hamster kidney (BHK) cells, and the products analysed by immunofluorescence. We first tested whether the glycoproteins were properly generated. Glycosylated E1 was equally produced by both wt and spmt constructs (Figure 3A, lanes 1 and 2), and, when treated with endoglycosidase H, the deglycosylated species had the same electrophoretic mobility on gels (Figure 3A, lanes 3 and 4). There was no evidence that uncleaved core-E1 species could be detected (data not shown). Also, immunofluorescence analysis did not detect any difference in the localization of E1 (data not shown) and E2 (Figure 3B) made from the two constructs, and is consistent with their association with the ER membrane. These results indicated once more that the mutations in the signal sequence between core protein and E1 did not affect its function in protein targeting and signal peptidase cleavage. Figure 3.Trafficking of core protein to lipid droplets requires intra membrane cleavage of the core-E1 signal peptide. CE1E2 polyproteins of the wt and spmt were expressed in BHK cells. (A) Cell extracts were probed for E1 by western blot analysis either directly (lanes 1 and 2) or upon treatment with endoglycosidase H (lanes 3 and 4). (B) Analysis of cells by immunofluorescence with an E2-specific antibody. (C) Immunofluorescence of core protein combined with Oil Red O staining of lipid droplets. (D) As for (C) except that a wider field is shown. (E) As for (C) except that the cells used were Huh7 cells. Download figure Download PowerPoint By immunofluorescence, we next investigated the effects of signal sequence mutations on the intracellular localization of core protein. The wt protein was detected at the surface of cytosolic lipid droplets that had been stained with Oil Red O as reported previously (Hope and McLauchlan, 2000) (Figure 3C and D). In contrast, the spmt core protein was distributed in a reticular pattern throughout the cell and showed no co-localization with lipid droplets (Figure 3C and D). The same results with wt and spmt core were obtained when the HCV proteins were expressed in the human hepatoma cell line Huh7 (Figure 3E). The distribution of the mutant form of core protein was indistinguishable from those for E1 and E2, suggesting localization at the ER membrane (data not shown). These findings indicated that inhibiting cleavage in the transmembrane region of the signal peptide abolished trafficking of core protein to lipid droplets. Mutations affecting signal peptide processing prevent release of core protein from the ER membrane To examine whether preventing proteolysis within the signal peptide altered the membrane-binding properties of core protein, we tested the ability of alkali to release the protein from membranes (Fujiki et al., 1982). Crude membranes from cells electroporated with SFV RNAs encoding either CE1E2 or CspmtE1E2, were treated with sodium carbonate and the resultant soluble and insoluble fractions were analysed for both core protein and E2, which is anchored in the lipid bilayer by C-terminal transmembrane domains (Figure 1A) (Cocquerel et al., 1998; Duvet et al., 1998). Alkali extraction of membranes from cells electroporated with RNA from either construct did not release E2, as expected, and the protein was found almost exclusively in pelleted material (Figure 4A, left panel, compare lanes 3 and 4). Analysis of the same samples for core protein indicated that the wt protein was released by sodium carbonate (Figure 4A, left panel, lane 3). By contrast, the mutant protein was found in the pellet fraction, consistent with anchorage in the ER membrane via the non-processed signal peptide at its C-terminus (Figure 4A, right panel, lane 4). Figure 4.Mutations affecting intramembrane cleavage of the signal peptide at the core-E1 junction retain core protein at the ER membrane. (A) Wt and spmt CE1E2 polyproteins were expressed in BHK cells. Membranes were isolated from cells and extracted with sodium carbonate (lanes 3 and 4). The distribution of core protein and E2 were visualized by western blot analysis with a core- and an E2-specific antibody, respectively. (B) CE1E2 (lane 1), ΔCE1E2 (lanes 2 and 3) and ΔCspmtE1E2 (lanes 4 and 5) polyproteins were expressed in BHK cells in the absence or presence of proteasome inhibitor MG132 as indicated. Membranes were isolated and extracted with sodium carbonate, and the distributions of E2 (left panel) and core/ΔC protein (right panel) were visualized by western blot analysis with a core- and an E2-specific antibody, respectively. (C) Immunofluorescence of cells probed with a core- and an E2-specific antibody. Where indicated, proteasome inhibitor MG132 was present during expression of ΔCE1E2. Download figure Download PowerPoint To further test whether the release of core protein from the ER membrane is affected when intramembrane proteolysis of the signal peptide cannot occur, we made use of a variant of core protein, ΔC, which lacks amino acid residues 125–144, and is degraded by the proteasome upon cleavage from E1 (Hope and McLauchlan, 2000). We hypothesized that blocking processing of the signal peptide may reduce degradation since core protein is expected to be retained at the ER membrane by its unprocessed signal peptide (Weihofen et al., 2000; Lemberg et al., 2001). Hence, a signal peptide mutant, ΔCspmtE1E2, was made that lacked residues 125–144 and had the same mutations in the signal sequence as spmt described above. Comparing levels of protein made by cells either expressing CE1E2, ΔCE1E2 or ΔCspmtE1E2, did not reveal any differences in the amounts of E1 (data not shown) and E2 detected (Figure 4B, left panel). However, there was a considerable difference in the relative amounts of core protein. In cells expressing ΔCE1E2, core protein was barely detected yet it was readily recognized in cells expressing CE1E2 and ΔCspmtE1E2 (Figure 4B, right panel). To confirm that cells expressing ΔCE1E2 did nevertheless produce ΔC, cells were incubated in the presence of the proteasome inhibitor MG132. In agreement with our previous observations (Hope and McLauchlan, 2000), enhanced levels of ΔC were detected upon treatment with MG132 (Figure 4B, right panel). The difference in detectable amounts of ΔC is also evident from indirect immunofluorescence analysis (Figure 4C). In contrast, MG132 did not increase the amount of core protein produced from ΔCspmtE1E2 (Figure 4B, right panel). Expression and intracellular localization of ΔC and ΔCspmt were also analysed by indirect immunofluorescence. ΔC, which was detected only in the presence of MG132, was distributed throughout the cell, including the nucleus (Figure 4C). ΔCspmt, in contrast, strictly co-localized with E2 at the ER membrane and was excluded from the nucleus. Furthermore, ΔCspmt was indistinguishably detected, irrespective of whether MG132 was added or not, suggesting that retention of the protein at the ER membrane did not expose it to degradation in the cytosol. Taken together, these results are consistent with cleavage of ΔCspmt from ΔCspmtE1E2 by signal peptidase, but not processing by SPP, leading to anchoring of non-processed ΔCspmt in the ER membrane, a finding that was confirmed by extraction with alkali (data not shown). Discussion HCV core protein is released from the viral polyprotein by the action of host proteases at the signal sequence between core protein and the envelope glycoprotein E1 (Hijikata et al., 1991; Ralston et al., 1993). In common with typical signal sequences, this region functions in protein targeting to the ER membrane (Walter and Johnson, 1994). It directs the nascent HCV polypeptide to translocation sites at the ER membrane where cleavage by signal peptidase in the ER lumen separates core protein and generates the N-terminal end of E1. Based on the size of core protein produced in tissue culture cells, it was proposed that the signal peptide was removed from the C-terminus by a second proteolytic event catalysed by an unidentified microsomal protease (Santolini et al., 1994; Hussy et al., 1996; Moradpour et al., 1996; Liu et al., 1997; Yasui et al., 1998). In the present study, we have provided evidence from both in vitro and cellular systems that this second protease is SPP, a recently identified presenilin-type aspartic protease that promotes intramembrane proteolysis of signal peptides at the ER membrane (Weihofen et al., 2002). The signal sequence at the junction of core protein and E1 is processed in the centre of the transmembrane region as was reported previously for other signal sequences (Weihofen et al., 2000; Lemberg et al., 2001). The reaction was sensitive to (Z-LL)2-ketone, a compound that efficiently inhibits SPP in vitro (Weihofen et al., 2000). Moreover, signal sequence mutations known to abolish processing by SPP (Lemberg et al., 2001), also abolished processing of the core-E1 signal sequence both in vitro and in live cells. The amino acids that were mutated are conserved in strains from all genotypes examined thus far, including those that are infectious in chimpanzees (Bukh et al., 1994; Kolykhalov et al., 1997; Yanagi et al., 1997, 1999; Beard et al., 1999). Therefore, we conclude that intramembrane proteolysis within the core-E1 signal sequence is a general feature in the maturation of HCV core protein. Core protein is thought to constitute the HCV capsid and it would thus be an integral component of the virion. At the present stage of research, HCV cannot be propagated in mammalian tissue culture cells and there is no system in such cells to demonstrate virus assembly. This includes human Huh7 cells, which harbour full-length genomes that can support constitutive HCV RNA replication but not virion production (Pietschmann et al., 2002). Hence, it is not possible to directly show that SPP cleavage to generate mature core protein is a prerequisite for virus production. A characteristic feature of the intracellular distribution of core protein is its association with lipid droplets. This was not only demonstrated in tissue culture cells, as reported herein and elsewhere, but also in hepatocytes from an HCV-infected chimpanzee (Moradpour et al., 1996; Barba et al., 1997; Yasui et al., 1998; Hope and McLauchlan, 2000; Pietschmann et al., 2002). Such localization is found on expression of either the entire HCV polyprotein, truncated versions or the core-coding region alone. Therefore, it is independent of other HCV proteins. The consistency with which association with lipid droplets is observed in various cell types suggests that this localization may be important in the virus assembly pathway. A hydrophobic domain, domain 2, not found in the capsid protein of related pesti- and flaviviruses, mediates targeting to lipid droplets (Hope and McLauchlan, 2000). We speculate that domain 2 integrates into the cytosolic leaflet of the ER membrane (Figure 5A) (Murphy and Vance, 1999; Brown, 2001; Ostermeyer et al., 2001). Upon intramembrane cleavage of the transmembrane signal peptide, the processed core protein may then be capable of trafficking along the lipid bilayer from the site of biosynthesis to zones at the ER, where lipid droplets are produced. Lipid droplet formation is proposed to occur at the ER, where an accumulation of neutral lipids in the lipid bilayer forces the leaflets of a bilayer apart leading to a bulge that may release budding droplets (Brown, 2001). Attachment of core protein could occur while droplets are generated. By contrast, the mutant core protein, which is not processed by SPP, may be unable to traffic to regions where lipid droplets are formed, or cannot transfer from the ER to lipid droplets as a con