Abstract
Our understanding of adenovirus (Ad) biology is largely extrapolated from human species C Ad5. Most humans are immune to Ad5, so lower-seroprevalence viruses like human Ad6 and Ad26 are being tested as therapeutic vectors. Ad6 and Ad26 differ at the DNA level by 34%. To better understand how this might impact their biology, we examined the life cycle of the two viruses in human lung cells in vitro. Both viruses infected A549 cells with similar efficiencies, executed DNA replication with identical kinetics within 12 h, and began killing cells within 72 h. While Ad6-infected cells remained adherent until death, Ad26-infected cells detached within 12 h of infection but remained viable. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of mRNA from infected cells demonstrated that viral transcripts constituted 1% of cellular mRNAs within 6 h and 8 to 16% within 12 h. Quantitative PCR and NGS revealed the activation of key early genes at 6 h and transition to late gene activation by 12 h by both viruses. There were marked differences in the balance of E1A and E1B activation by the two viruses and in the expression of E3 immune evasion mRNAs. Ad6 was markedly more effective at suppressing major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC I) display on the cell surface and in evading TRAIL-mediated apoptosis than was Ad26. These data demonstrate shared as well as divergent life cycles in these genetically distant human adenoviruses. An understanding of these differences expands the knowledge of alternative Ad species and may inform the selection of related Ads for therapeutic development. Importance: A burgeoning number of adenoviruses (Ads) are being harnessed as therapeutics, yet the biology of these viruses is generally extrapolated from Ad2 and Ad5. Here, we are the first to compare the transcriptional programs of two genetically distant Ads by mRNA next-generation sequencing (NGS). Species C Ad6 and Ad26 are being pursued as lower-seroprevalence Ad vectors but differ at the DNA level by 34%. Head-to-head comparison in human lung cells by NGS revealed that the two viruses generally conform to our general understanding of the Ad transcriptional program. However, fine mapping revealed subtle and strong differences in how these two viruses execute these programs, including differences in the balance of E1A and E1B mRNAs and in E3 immune evasion genes. This suggests that not all adenoviruses behave like Ad2 and Ad5 and that they may have unique strategies to infect cells and evade the immune system.