For example, a STAT1 binding site lying 10 or 100 base-pairs upstream of the HTLV-1 provirus was associated with spontaneous Tax expression, but a STAT1 site lying a similar distance

downstream had no effect. The strongest and most unexpected effect was that of BRG1, an ATPase that powers the chromatin remodelling complex SWI/SNF. Whereas the presence of a BRG1 site (identified by ChIP) 10–100 base-pairs upstream was associated with silencing of Tax expression, a BRG1 site 10–100 base-pairs downstream of the provirus was associated with spontaneous Tax expression. The asymmetry of these effects strongly implies that these DNA binding sites are not associated Vandetanib concentration with proviral expression simply by virtue of lying in open-conformation chromatin. Rather, the asymmetry implies a mechanistic interaction between transcription of the provirus and transcription of the flanking host genome. This conclusion Ruxolitinib supplier was reinforced by the observation [80] that the transcriptional orientation of the provirus relative to the nearest host gene was also associated with the frequency of spontaneous expression of the provirus. We expected that a provirus lying downstream of the host transcriptional start site and in the same transcriptional

sense would be more likely to express Tax than a provirus lying in the opposite transcriptional orientation. But the results showed exactly the opposite effect: a same-sense host transcriptional start site upstream appeared to suppress Tax expression, whereas a same-sense transcriptional start site downstream of the provirus was many associated with spontaneous Tax expression. The observation that Tax expression is suppressed by the presence upstream of either chromatin remodelling factors or an active host transcriptional start site strongly suggests that the dominant interaction between the flanking host genome and the provirus is transcriptional interference:

that is, the inhibition of transcription of the provirus from the 5′ LTR by the presence of an active nearby host promoter upstream of the provirus. It is probable that transcriptional interference contributes to silencing of other integrated proviruses, and it may therefore help to maintain the reservoir of latent HIV-1 [92]. The mechanisms of transcriptional interference are not fully understood; one possible mechanism is occlusion of the downstream promoter by an active transcription complex, a phenomenon called promoter occlusion. It has been widely believed that oligoclonal expansion of HTLV-1-infected T cells is not only responsible for persistence of the infection in vivo but also maintains the high proviral load and predisposes to both inflammatory and malignant diseases associated with HTLV-1.