# The chemokine receptor CCR5: multi-faceted hook for HIV-1

Natacha Faivre, Christel Verollet, Fabrice Dumas

► To cite this version:

Natacha Faivre, Christel Verollet, Fabrice Dumas. The chemokine receptor CCR5: multi-faceted hook for HIV-1. Retrovirology, 2024, 21 (1), pp.2. 10.1186/s12977-024-00634-1. hal-04732234

HAL Id: hal-04732234

https://hal.science/hal-04732234v1

Submitted on 11 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
REVIEW

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# The chemokine receptor CCR5: multi-faceted hook for HIV-1

Natacha Faivre<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />, Christel Verollet<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> and Fabrice Dumas<fnref n="1" />*

## Abstract

Chemokines are cytokines whose primary role is cellular activation and stimulation of leukocyte migration. They perform their various functions by interacting with G protein-coupled cell surface receptors (GPCRs) and are involved in the regulation of many biological processes such as apoptosis, proliferation, angiogenesis, hematopoiesis or organogenesis. They contribute to the maintenance of the homeostasis of lymphocytes and coordinate the function of the immune system. However, chemokines and their receptors are sometimes hijacked by some pathogens to infect the host organism. For a given chemokine receptor, there is a wide structural, organizational and conformational diversity. In this review, we describe the evidence for structural variety reported for the chemokine receptor CCR5, how this variability can be exploited by HIV-1 to infect its target cells and what therapeutic solutions are currently being developed to overcome this problem.

**Keywords** HIV-1, CCR5, Chemokine receptor, Conformation, Lipid membrane

## Introduction

Chemokines belong to the cytokine family. Their chemoattractant properties are at the origin of their name (chemoattractant cytokines). They are a family of small, soluble 8–14 KDa proteins that exert important functions of intercellular communication. All chemokines exert their functions by binding to G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) also called chemokine receptors. Chemokines, regulate many biological processes such as proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, hematopoiesis or lymphoid organ development, but their main role is to activate and control leukocyte migration. Following interaction

with their specific chemokine ligands, chemokine receptors trigger signaling that initiates a chemotaxis process, which traffics the cell to a desired location within the organism. These molecules are involved in the maintenance of lymphocyte homeostasis under physiological conditions and the deregulation of their expression is associated to many diseases [1]. Although chemokine receptors play a pivotal role in the host’s antimicrobial defense mechanisms, they can serve as primary targets for various pathogens. These pathogens may either encode chemokine mimics or, as observed in the context of HIV-1, use chemokine receptors to directly infect their target cells.

Some pathogens can induce the production of molecules that bind to receptors with a higher affinity than their natural ligands [2–5], others will modify the expression level of chemokines [6, 7] or of chemokine receptors [8]. In all cases, this is an effective way to either evade immune selection or, on the opposite, to lead to a deleterious burst of the immune system (cytokine storm) [9]. This strategy is used by a wide variety of pathogens ranging from ticks [10, 11], parasites [12, 13] to bacteria [6, 7, 14] and viruses [15–30]. Among viruses, one

Fabrice Dumas
fabrice.dumas@ipbs.fr

<footnote>*Correspondence:</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale (IPBS), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Université Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier (UPS), Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² International Research Laboratory (IRP) CNRS "IM-TB/HIV", Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ International Research Laboratory (IRP) CNRS "IM-TB/HIV", Buenos Aires, Argentina</footnote>
can cite as examples Epstein-Barr viruses that encode a GPCR (BILF1) capable of forming a dimer with CXCR4 chemokine receptor thereby inhibiting its signaling but also human cytomegalovirus (CMV) that secretes a soluble chemokine receptor (pUL21.5) which binds selectively to the chemokine RANTES with very high affinity, blocking the interaction of RANTES with its cellular receptors (CCR5). In both cases, viruses interfere with cellular signaling processes, reducing the effectiveness of the immune response [17]. Such phenomenon has also been described for poxviruses such as Respiratory syncytial virus [18], mousepox [19, 20], smallpox [21, 22], monkeypox [23] (of which several hundred cases have been diagnosed in humans in Europe during the spring 2022), herpes viruses [24–27] and HIV [28]. This is not an exhaustive list and for more details see [29, 30].

In some cases, direct attachment of pathogens to a chemokine receptor represents the first step of infection, the receptor acting as an anchor that allows the pathogen to dock to the plasma membrane of its target cell before entering into the cell or releasing its contents into the cytoplasm. This has for instance been described for pathogenic bacteria Staphylococcus aureus (whose toxins interacts with CCR5 chemokine receptor) [31], for Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (that binds to CX3CR1 chemokine receptor) [32–34] and HIV (that uses CCR5 and/or CXCR4 chemokine receptors to attach and infect immune cells) [35–38]. In the case of HIV-1, the CCR5 chemokine receptor not only acts as an anchor for the virus to attach to the cell surface, but also plays an active role in the infection process by initiating signaling cascades that mimics the signaling of chemokines

and promotes infection [28, 39–41]. To be thorough, and although it is outside the scope of this review, it is interesting to note that the HIV can also bind to other receptors such as glycan-binding proteins, so-called lectins, which mediate potent viral transmission to CD4⁺ T cells known as *trans*-infection [42]. One can cite DC-SIGN/CD209 [43], the C-type lectin DC immunoreceptor (DCIR) [44], the mannose receptor (MR) or Siglec-1/CD169 [45].

A very large number of studies have been conducted on HIV-1 and have revealed the ability of this virus to exploit the wide structural variability (i.e. different conformational states) of chemokine receptors to bypass the immune system and circumvent some therapeutic approaches. It is this last aspect that we aim to discuss in this review: how the structural diversity of chemokine receptors is exploited by HIV-1 to infect its target cells, whether this diversity comes from one person to another, from one cell type to another or within the same cell. We will here focus mainly on the C-C chemokine receptor type 5, also known as CCR5 and to a lesser extent on C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4).

## HIV-1 infection requires interaction with chemokine receptors

The early steps of HIV-1 infection first involve the binding of the HIV protein envelope gp120 to the CD4 receptor (Fig. 1, step 1). This process then requires the interaction of gp120 with a chemokine receptor that can be either CCR5 or CXCR4 (Fig. 1, step 2). This second interaction defines the tropism of the virus infecting the cell; viruses that bind to CCR5 are called “R5”, those that

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Schematic view of the early steps of HIV infection. The HIV envelope (Env), consisting of gp120 and gp41 subunits, first binds to the CD4 receptor located at the plasma membrane of the infected cell (1). This binding induces a conformational change in gp120 that allows the interaction of its V3 loop with a co-receptor (2). The co-receptor can be either CCR5 or CXCR4, defining the tropism of the virus (see main text). This second binding induces a new conformational change in gp120 which exposes the fusion peptide of gp41 that anchors its N-terminal domain into the plasma membrane of the target cell (3). This initiates a process of fusion that will lead to the release of the viral content into the cytoplasm of the infected cell (for more details see [38, 54])</figcaption></figure>
bind to CXCR4 are called “X4” and those that are able to
bind to both are known as “R5X4”. R5 viruses are prefer-
entially transmitted [46] and are predominant during the
chronic phase of infection [47, 48]. Approximately 50% of
patients with advanced HIV develop X4 virus in addition
to R5 virus. This usually occurs after several years and is
associated with a decline in the CD4+T cell count and a
rapid progression to a pathologic state [49–53].

The combination of the structural diversity of both
HIV-1 and CCR5 offers a broad range of possible interac-
tions between these molecules, providing as many oppor-
tunities for infection. On the one hand, the V3 loop of the
viral protein gp120, which is involved in the binding to
CCR5 (Fig. 1, step 2) [55, 56], is one of the most varia-
ble sites of HIV-1, with differences of up to 50% between
isolates [57, 58]. This explains why the number of CCR5
molecules recognized by different HIV-1 gp120 proteins
varies differently between various cell types [59]. On the
other hand, GPCRs have long been depicted as switches
that can exist in two distinct states: inactive and active.
Over the past two decades, this vision has considerably
evolved and it is now well established that the situation
is far more complex than originally thought. Numerous
crystallographic and cryo-electron microscopy struc-
tures have revealed that GPCRs can adopt many differ-
ent three-dimensional structures. Ligands or G-proteins
selectively bind to a subset of these conformations, caus-
ing a population shift and establishing a new equilibrium
[60–64]. In this way, Urvas and Kellenberger recently
published a comparative analysis of all chemokine—
chemokine receptor structures uncovering that while
N termini receptors structures exhibit conserved inter-
action patterns with chemokines, the second extracel-
lular loop exhibits several subfamily-specific features
[65]. Moreover, these structures are only the tip of the
iceberg since they represent only static snapshots of the
most stable states of the proteins when there is a thermal
equilibrium which leads to oscillations between multiple
transient conformations [66].

Structural variability of chemokines receptors
involved in HIV-1 infection

CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors belong to the GPCR class A
family. These cell-surface receptors can detect extracellu-
lar molecules and induce an intracellular response. Bind-
ing of signal molecules to the extracellular surface of the
receptor activates intracellular G proteins which in turn
act on various effectors mediating intracellular signaling
effects. These receptors are made up of 7 transmembrane
helices connected by three extracellular and three intra-
cellular loops and their overall 3D structure can be mod-
ulated by many factors. Importantly, the 3D structure of

CCR5 and CXCR4 associated with different antagonists
has been elucidated a decade ago [67, 68].

Post-translational modifications

A first level of structural differences relates to the modu-
lation of post-translational modifications of receptors.
Hundreds of post-translational modifications of proteins
have been reported to date [69]. This diversity leads to a
structural variety of proteins that will influence their abil-
ity to interact with their ligands but also offer many pos-
sibilities for viruses to adapt to their attachment. Many
post-translational modifications have been described for
CCR5 including, o-glycosilation, phosphorylation, sulfa-
tion and palmitoylation (Fig. 2A).

*O*-glycosylation and Phosphorylation—*O*-glycosylation of CCR5 does not appear to affect the ability of HIV-1 to infect cells [70] and there is little data on the impact of CCR5 phosphorylation on HIV-1 infection. Phosphorylation of this receptor appears to be primarily involved in internalization and recycling and thus its abundance at the surface of the cell (for review, see [71]). However, one cannot exclude that it also has an impact on the overall structure of the proteins and contributes to their structural diversity at the surface of the cell.

Sulfation—By contrast, sulfation of tyrosine residues 3, 10, 14 and 15 of the N-terminal moiety of CCR5 has been described to play an important role in the functionality of this receptor [72]. In 1999, Farzan and colleagues have shown that sulfation of the amino-terminal part of CCR5 contributes to the binding of its ligands MIP-1 α and MIP-1 β but also to its binding to gp120/CD4 complexes and thus to the ability of HIV-1 to infect cells [73]. More recently, using ELISA approaches and performing binding experiments on cells expressing CCR5 under conditions that modulate their sulfation level, Scurci and colleagues have shown that CCR5 sulfation is heterogeneous thereby affecting the binding properties of natural chemokines and some monoclonal antibodies (mAb 3A9 only binds to the sulfated peptide while mAb HEK/1/85a shows a clear preference for the unsulfated peptide) [74]. These authors also suggest that the difference in binding ability between natural ligands (MIP-1 α, MIP-1 β, RANTES/CCL5) and the analogue 5P12-RANTES (an HIV entry inhibitor that binds to CCR5) are—at least in part—due to the heterogeneity of sulfation on the cell surface (other factors, such as the molecular fit of ligands with the transmembrane domain of the receptor, can also influence their global affinity). This proposal is in agreement with other recent NMR works that have identified sulfation combinations that are important for ligand binding [75–77]. To a lesser extent this effect is also observed with CXCR4, which exists in several different forms of sulfation [78].
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Schematic representation of the factors that can influence the 3D-structure of CCR5 coreceptor. A. Post-translational modifications (PMTs): sites of O-Glycosylation (Ser6, Thr16, Ser17) [70, 71], sulfation (Tyr3, 10, 14, 15) [73, 75-78], palmitoylation (Cys321, 323 and 324) [79-91] and phosphorylation (Ser336, 337, 342 and 349) [235, 236] are represented by colored circles. Factors such as G-protein coupling (B) [28, 60, 97-103], mutations (C) [126-129, 177, 178], surface density [117-123] and oligomerization [136-149] (D) and membrane surrounding [152-173] (E) are also exemplified</figcaption></figure>

**Palmitoylation**—CCR5 can also be palmitoylated on three cysteine residues: C321, C323, and C324, in the C-terminal tail of CCR5 [79, 80]. The presence of palmitate groups will affect CCR5 at three levels: on the structure of the receptor itself, on its cell distribution and on its membrane localization [81, 82]. From a strictly structural perspective, the insertion of palmitate into the cytoplasmic leaflet of the plasma membrane profoundly modifies the conformation of the cytosolic tail housing the palmitoylated cysteine [83] and affect the overall GPCR structure [84–86]. In addition, such modification has been shown to promote coupling to G-receptors [87] and phosphorylation of CCR5 [88] leading to a potential increase of structural diversity of the receptors. Another important effect of palmitoylation lies in its impact on the membrane distribution of receptors within the cell.

Palmitoylation—CCR5 can also be palmitoylated on three cysteine residues: C321, C323, and C324, in the C-terminal tail of CCR5 [79, 80]. The presence of palmitate groups will affect CCR5 at three levels: on the structure of the receptor itself, on its cell distribution and on its membrane localization [81, 82]. From a strictly structural perspective, the insertion of palmitate into the cytoplasmic leaflet of the plasma membrane profoundly modifies the conformation of the cytosolic tail housing the palmitoylated cysteine [83] and affect the overall GPCR structure [84–86]. In addition, such modification has been shown to promote coupling to G-receptors [87] and phosphorylation of CCR5 [88] leading to a potential increase of structural diversity of the receptors. Another important effect of palmitoylation lies in its impact on the membrane distribution of receptors within the cell. Palmitoylation of membrane proteins is often required for their correct folding, which protects them from the degradation pathway associated with the endoplasmic reticulum. In other words, palmitoylation orchestrates the subcellular traffic of GPCRs to the plasma membrane. For this reason, HIV-1 cannot infect cells in which CCR5 is not palmitoylated, because it is not addressed to the plasma membrane [79, 89]. The presence of a saturated lipid (i.e. palmitate) that inserts into the membrane is known to promote protein relocation into liquid-ordered raft domains [86, 90, 91]. In this regard, palmitoylation of CCR5 is essential for the incorporation of CCR5 into the plasma membrane rafts [85] that offers a new lipid environment to the proteins inducing some conformational changes that will be discussed in the following section of this manuscript.
## Membrane organization of chemokine receptors

As mentioned before, chemokine receptors present a structural diversity linked to their intrinsic chemical composition. Beyond this strictly “structural” aspect, the receptor surrounding plays an essential role in the modulation of its three-dimensional structure. Among these environmental factors, the coupling with G proteins or other transmembrane proteins but also the interactions with their lipid environment are key elements.

**Coupling to G proteins**—As indicated by their name, GPCRs can be coupled (or not) with different types of heterotrimeric G proteins (Fig. 2B). Human genome encodes 18 different Gα proteins, 5 Gβ proteins, and 12 Gγ proteins [92]. CCR5 has been shown to interact with several of them: Gαi, Gαq, Gβ and Gγ [28, 93]. This combination of possible interactions not only contributes to the structural diversity of CCR5, offering larger possibilities of HIV to bind to the cells, but it also favors infection by triggering signal transduction upon HIV binding.

Conformational changes: many authors have studied if interactions with G proteins could modify CCR5 conformation and affect their ability to interact with HIV-1. Certain small molecule inhibitors of CCR5 used as HIV-1 inhibitors, such as vicriviroc (VVC), maraviroc (MVC) or TAK779, act as allosteric modulators that stabilize a conformation of CCR5 that the virus does not effectively recognize, thus preventing its entry [94–96]. Several authors have investigated whether the binding of these inhibitors was affected by the coupling of CCR5 with G proteins. By performing binding assays, they showed that the association of the intracellular domains of CCR5 with G proteins alters their interactions with the inhibitors, suggesting that the association of CCR5 with the signaling machinery induces substantial conformational changes that affect the binding of these inhibitors and their ability to block HIV-1 entry [97–100]. Similar conclusion were also obtained by other studies that used monoclonal antibodies able to identify different CCR5 conformations [101]. These proposals were corroborated by cryo-electron microscopy structures which showed notable structural changes depending on whether CCR5 was coupled to a Gαi1 protein or not [102]. This is also in agreement with former results obtained on another GPCR receptor, the β2-adrenergic receptor, whose coupling with the G protein is loose and does not stabilize the receptor in a single conformation but allows for the existence of distinct intermediates [60, 103]. Taken together, these results show that whether or not CCR5 is coupled to G proteins is a source of conformational diversity.

Signal transduction: binding of HIV-1 gp120 to CCR5 has been shown to trigger activation of Gαi or Gαq proteins. This results in the modulation of many important cellular functions, including cell migration, adhesion, or

survival [104–112]. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the interaction between the viral envelope and CCR5 can also trigger a response via β-arrestins. Initially considered for their role in receptor desensitization, β-arrestins are now recognized as versatile scaffolds interacting with various signaling proteins, including MAPKs, PI3K, and protein kinase B [113]. The activated signaling pathways will ultimately impact the cell susceptibility to HIV infection. For instance, it has been demonstrated that exposure to viral gp120 can initiate viral replication in cultures of resting CD4 T cells from infected individuals [114]. These findings suggest that virus-hijacked signaling process may subsequently facilitate pathogenesis. More details of these processes can be found in reviews by Wu and Yoder [28], Nickolof-Bybel et al. [40] and Juno and Fowke [115].

The intricate interplay between the G proteins, the CCR5 receptor and its binding to the HIV envelope protein underscores the complexity of understanding the exact role of each in HIV infection. The ability of the virus to infect its target cells depends not only on its ability to bind to the receptor, but also on its ability to trigger a cellular response that promotes its spread. Therefore, elucidating not only the ability of the virus to bind to CCR5, but also the signaling pathways it induces in conjunction with these structural changes could open the door to the discovery of innovative antiretroviral agents.

**Receptors surface density**—HIV-1 infection involves lateral organization of the receptors as it requires the binding of trimers of the virus envelope glycoprotein to host cell receptors leading to membrane fusion. Numerous studies have shown that effective infection can only occur if several of these trimers are simultaneously involved in the process [116]. As a consequence, the density of receptors present at the surface of the cells will have a direct impact on the capacity of the viruses to infect them [117–121] (Fig. 2D). For example, by quantifying CCR5 expression in acutely HIV-infected subjects over a 2 year period, it was shown by Yang et al. that high levels of CCR5 on CD4 central memory cells are associated with rapid disease progression [122]. Conversely, in elite controllers (individuals who spontaneously control HIV-1 replication in the absence of antiretroviral therapy), the analysis of the surface phenotype and transcriptional profile of CD4+T cells has revealed low CCR5 expression, leading to the conclusion that low CCR5 expression protects the cells from HIV-1 infection [123]. Finally, it has been shown that some mutations induce a decrease for CCR5 addressed to the plasma membrane, conferring to individuals an almost total resistance to HIV-1 infection. This is the case for truncated CCR5 due to the delta 24 mutation [124, 125] and the delta 32 mutation [126–129] (Fig. 2C) that are known to impact the localization of CCR5. This will be developed in the next
chapter. Various studies have then investigated the mini-
mum number of receptors required for infection. Infec-
tivity assays performed on HeLa cells in which individual
clones express either large or small amounts of CD4 and
distinct amounts of CCR5 have shown that the minimum
amount of CCR5 allowing infection is dependent on the
quantity of CD4 in the membrane and vary from 1.10³ to
1.10⁴ CCR5 per cell [119]. Furthermore, approximately
four to six CCR5s assemble around the virus to form a
complex needed for infection [130]. Since the efficiency
of infection depends on both CD4 and CCR5 concentra-
tions rather than on precise amounts of each, the authors
have proposed that this efficiency also depends on the
diffusion of these proteins within the membrane and
on their ability to encounter each other to form virus-
CD4-CCR5 ternary complexes [37]. This was later on
evidenced by Baker et al. who measured the dynamics of
CD4 and CCR5 by FRAP and revealed the existence of
membrane domains that concentrate CD4 and CCR5 in a
1:5 ratio [131]. Finally yet importantly, it appears that the
levels and expression profile of CCR5 can influence the
tropism of virus strains for different cell types [132–134]
and correlates with the appearance of viral reservoirs
[135].

Oligomerization of receptors—Many GPCRs are able to interact with each other to form higher-order structures (homomers and/or heteromers) (Fig. 2D) that can, upon allosteric modulation, exhibit distinct biochemical properties from monomers [136–139]. Both CCR5 and CXCR4 have been shown to form many different homo and heteromers whose exhaustive lists can be found in [140] (Table 1) and [141] (Table 1). Many studies have used Bioluminescence or Fluorescence Energy Transfer (BRET and FRET, respectively) to detect oligomers formation. These methods are based on the fact that light energy can only be transferred from a donor to an acceptor if these molecules are less than 10 nm apart. By using these experimental approaches, it has first been shown that CCR5 constitutively forms homodimers at the surface of T-lymphocytes [142]. Thereafter, similar fluorescence measurements combined with the use of monoclonal antibodies that recognize different epitopes of CCR5 allowed to establish that CCR5 oligomers are structurally different from monomers and that HIV-1 preferentially recognize the monomeric form of the receptor [143]. Similar results have been obtained by dynamic approaches consisting in tracking and classifying the motion of different receptor subpopulations [144, 145]. Further studies finally provided evidence of three distinct CCR5 dimeric organizations [146]. On the same principle, the formation of CCR5-CCR2b heteromers has been evidenced and binding experiments revealed that the interaction between heterodimer units

is of allosteric nature and modifies the binding properties
of chemokines [147, 148]. Interestingly, oligomerization
of CCR5/CD4/CXCR4 receptors has also been reported
in the literature. This association has been shown to pre-
vent X4 HIV-1 virus from binding to target cells [149].
Overall, these data support the view that oligomeriza-
tion of chemokine receptors affects their structure and
may influence the susceptibility of cells to infection. The
development of super-resolution fluorescence methods,
such as Stochastic Optical Reconstruction Microscopy
(STORM) or Photo-Activation Localization Microscopy
(PALM) has permitted direct visualization of GPCRs
such as mu-opioid receptor [150] and dopamine recep-
tor [151] at the single-molecule level, unveiling that their
oligomers are transitory structures with rapid association
and dissociation kinetics. This opens the gate to future
experiment carried out on CCR5 and CXCR4 to decipher
their mechanism of oligomerization and its role in HIV-1
infection.

Lipid surrounding—Finally, it has long been known that the lipid membrane has an impact on the structuring of membrane proteins [152, 153] (Fig. 2E), this is particularly true for GPCRs [154–156], including CCR5 and CXCR4 [157–160]. For example, it has recently been reported that ceramide or related sphingolipids might invert the topology of CCR5, preventing macrophages from migrating toward CCL5 [161] and similar results were obtained with CXCR4 and the CXCL12 chemokine [160]. Concurrently, Calmet et al. have reconstituted CCR5 receptors into model membranes of controlled lipid composition and demonstrated that cholesterol decreases the binding affinity of maraviroc to CCR5 [157]. Molecular dynamics simulation further suggested that cholesterol restricts the structural dynamics of the receptor [157]. It is interesting to notice that sphingolipids and cholesterol are key components involved in the formation of lipid rafts [162, 163]. Actually, a lot of work has been done to understand the contribution of lipid rafts in the organization of HIV-1 receptors and in the infection process [164]. Indeed, extensive studies conducted in the late 1990s have shown that the CD4 receptor is clearly associated with rafts [165–167]. Subsequently, other studies based on raft extraction and protein analysis have shown that CCR5 is mainly associated with lipid rafts [168] while CXCR4 is only partially localized into them [168–170]. Moreover, the use of conformational antibodies has revealed that rafts stabilize the active conformation of CCR5 towards its ligands [171]. Lastly, Yang and colleagues have used model systems mimicking HIV-1 envelopes and T-cell membranes to demonstrate that the hydrophobic mismatch at boundaries between liquid-ordered and liquid-disordered regions (i.e. lipid raft and non-raft regions) generates
a line tension that can facilitate membrane fusion with the virus envelope [172, 173]. Taken together, these data suggest that lipid rafts may act as platforms that facilitate virus entry both by fostering local concentrations of receptors and/or co-receptors and by modulating their conformation.

## Genetic mutation of chemokine receptors is double-edged sword for HIV-1

In this review, we have discussed the beneficial effects that heterogeneity in chemokine receptor structure could have on HIV-1 infection. Nevertheless, this variability can, in some rare cases, be detrimental for viruses. Indeed, it has been found in the 90's that about 1% of the Caucasian human population carries a homozygous 32 base pair deletion in the gene encoding for the CCR5 receptor, resulting in a truncated gene that produces non-functional receptors named CCR5 delta-32 [127, 132, 174]. This mutation, discovered in a group of homozygous patients known as "exposed uninfected", confers resistance to infection. It has been shown that the protein CCR5 delta-32 remains mostly localized in the endoplasmic reticulum where it exerts a trans-dominant negative effect on the wild type CCR5 protein, preventing its transport to the cell surface [175]. Furthermore, it forms dimers with the CXCR4 proteins in the ER, which also limits their distribution to the plasma membrane [176]. As a consequence, both CCR5 and CXCR4 are absent from the plasma membrane conferring to the cells a resistance to R5, X4 and R5X4 viruses [126–129]. This observation has been exploited to initially cure two patients who became famous and known as "Berlin patient" [177] and "London patient" [178]. Both of them have received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from donors with a homozygous CCR5 delta-32 mutation to cure a leukemia [179]. More recently, three other patients have been cured using the same strategy, one at Weill Cornell hospital of New York in the frame of IMPAACT P1107 clinical trial (NCT02140944) [180], a second one at the City of Hope cancer institute in Los Angeles as revealed by Jana Dickter during the AIDS 2022 press conference and a third one in Düsseldorf in 2023 [181]. At this stage, it should be stressed that we cannot exclude the possibility that additional factors, such as the transplant procedure itself, may have played a role in these results.

Although large-scale therapy based on this strategy is not feasible, these results demonstrate that CCR5 is a suitable target for HIV-1 gene therapy. It should be noted that such a treatment could potentially influence other medical conditions. For instance, it has been suggested that the CCR5-delta32 mutation might contribute to prolonged kidney transplant survival [182]. Conversely, it

has also been proposed that this mutation could increase susceptibility to neuroinvasive West Nile virus infections [183].

## Targeting CCR5 to fight the virus

In the last decades, three main strategies targeting CCR5 have mainly been developed to block HIV infection: the use of CCR5 ligands, the use of antibodies and, more recently, editing the genome in order to eradicate CCR5 from the cell surface or modify its structure. It is important to highlight that the first two strategies can take advantage of the structural diversity of CCR5 by specifically targeting the subset of receptors implicated in HIV-1 infection. This targeted approach may help to minimize the adverse effects of drugs. In the light of the structural variabilities of CCR5 discussed above, we will now discuss the potential of each of these strategies.

*Development of CCR5 ligands*—This strategy aims to develop molecules that will bind to CCR5 and prevent the interaction between CCR5 and the gp120 HIV protein thereby aborting HIV entry mediated by fusion and infection. Up today, many molecules have been produced such as Tak-779 [96], cenicriviroc [184], CMPD-167 [185], Aplaviroc [186], vicriviroc [94] or maraviroc [95] (for a detailed review see [187, 188]). Despite the large number of molecules developed and clinical trials carried out, only maraviroc has been approved for use in HIV treatment in 2007 [189]. It remains the only CCR5 inhibitor in clinical use to date. It is an inverse CCR5 agonist that impairs HIV envelope binding to CCR5 through a noncompetitive and allosteric modulation [67, 95, 98, 190].

However, nine CCR5 mutations have been identified as inducing a decrease of the affinity for maraviroc (up to tenfold) [191]. It should be noted that, with one exception, all these mutations also modify gp120 binding and are therefore less detrimental in terms of protection against viral infection. The use of maraviroc can cause a tropism switch to X4 strains although this is a very rare event in the absence of pre-existing X4 strains. This drug cannot be used in the presence of X4 strains, as a result, it requires a viral tropism test before use. Part of the problem of its use also arises from the possible emergence of virus variants that recognize the maraviroc-CCR5 complex, as well as free CCR5 [192–194].

*Development of anti-CCR5 antibodies*—Various attempts have been made to develop antibodies that prevent HIV infection [195–197]. These antibodies are designed not only to bind to CCR5 and prevent its interaction with the viral protein gp120, but also to trigger the internalization of the co-receptor [198]. Only two antibodies reached clinical trials: CCR5mAb004 [188], that have been withdrawn in 2006, and Leronlimab
[196] (formerly PRO 140), for which many clinical trials have been completed (NCT02175680, NCT00110591, NCT02483078, NCT00613379, NCT00642707) or are still running (NCT03902522, NCT02859961, NCT02355184, NCT02990858, NCT05271370). This antibody has not yet been granted approval by the Food and Drug Administration, but has been designated fast-track status in 2019 [199]. Leronimab is a humanized monoclonal IgG4 antibody that targets the extracellular domain 2 of CCR5, and impairs its interaction with HIV-1 gp120 preventing virus entry. Subcutaneous administration of this antibody to HIV-1-infected individuals significantly reduced their viral load between successive injections [200]. When administered intravenously to HIV-1 infected adult subjects, it has also showed potent and long-lived antiviral activity [201]. The only downside is that Leronimab does not recognize all CCR5 proteins since receptor occupancy was around 85% [201] meaning that 15% of CCR5 receptors potentially escape to the antibody and might participate to the emergence of resistant HIV-1 strains. Their use also raises pharmacokinetic issues. Because they are proteins, they cannot be absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and must be administered parenterally. A final issue arises from the fact that the use of anti-CCR5 antibodies can lead to a shift in tropism towards CXCR4 [202].

**CCR5 gene editing**—Recent advances in genome editing offers unprecedented possibilities for gene therapy, as it is now possible to replace one or more bases in any gene of interest, at any location [203, 204]. The CRISPR/Cas9 system or the use of zinc finger nucleases (ZFN) are methods of choice for such gene editing [205, 206]. These tools can be very useful to fight against HIV infection. The experimental strategy consists in extracting hematopoietic stem cells from patients, suppressing CCR5 expression in these cells thanks to an appropriate treatment (i.e. CRISPR/Cas9 or ZFN) before reinjecting them. The treated cells, newly resistant to infection, should then be able to proliferate and substitute cells sensitive to HIV-1. Several attempts have been performed in the frame of clinical trials such as NCT03164135 (CCR5 depletion thanks to CRIPR/CAS9), NCT03666871 and NCT02388594 (CCR5 depletion thanks to ZFN). These experiments have been shown to produce in vitro HIV-1 resistance which constitutes an encouraging proof of concept for HIV cure [207–211]. Despite these successes for CCR5 ablation, low genome-editing frequencies [212] and high off-target activity [213] have been observed. Therefore, genome-editing techniques still need to be improved before they can be used on a mass scale. Furthermore, since CCR5 deletion alone has no impact on infection by X4-tropic viruses, some authors have performed a double knockout (KO) CCR5+CXCR4 [214].

Unfortunately, a poor engraftment of the R5X4-CRISPR-Cas9 KO CD4+T cells in mice bone marrow has been obtained.

Another promising approach consists in taking advantage of the delta-32 mutation described earlier. This time, the strategy consists in modifying CCR5 gene (and not suppress it) in order to express the delta-32 truncated CCR5 protein. We have seen that this mutation suppresses the expression of CCR5 and CXCR4 at the cell surface, thus protecting them from R5- and X4-tropic viruses. This also present the advantage to target one gene instead of two and the risk of adverse side-effects seems limited insofar as this mutation has been observed naturally on thousands of people who do not seem to present any deleterious effects. Using this method, Ye et al. [215] and Qi et al. [216] succeeded to render cells resistant to HIV-1 infection whatever the tropism of the virus. Again unfortunately, the successful rate was low (20% on Jurkat cells and 11% in primary CD4+ cells) [216] so the protocols still need to be improved. Unlike the other approaches discussed in this chapter, CCR5 delta 32 editing overcomes the structural variability of CCR5 described in this manuscript. As such, this strategy appears to be a very promising approach for eradicating HIV by targeting CCR5.

## Conclusion

The more varied the receptor structure, the more difficult it is to block them all, and the more opportunities viruses will have to bind to them to infect cells [123, 217]. The factors that can modulate the conformation and the organization of receptors involved in HIV-1 infection are numerous: post-translational modifications, expression level, coupling to G proteins, oligomerization or mutation of CCR5 and lipid environment (Fig. 2). These factors can be interdependent which further complicates their possible structural combinations (for instance, palmitoylation promotes the localization of CCR5 into the lipid rafts domains, which will then promote their interaction with the G proteins that are also concentrated there). All these parameters can vary within the same cell [98, 218–223], from one cell type to another [99, 224–226] and, by extent, from one patient to another. The combination of these factors leads to an infinite number of intermediate conformations which will present different affinities for their natural substrates but also for HIV-1 receptors [67, 99, 100, 221, 227–230], themselves presenting a very large structural variety [59, 231–233]. This tremendous diversity explains the difficulties encountered over the past 30 years in the fight against AIDS. Considerable advances have been made and HIV infection is now well controlled by antiretroviral therapy (ART) and patients can live almost normally as long as
they have access to these treatments and adhere strictly to the medication instructions. Nevertheless, these treatments do not block viral entry and they are not without risk since they can induce numerous side effects such as central nervous system disorders, bone defects, cardiovascular, hepatic or renal risks [234]. In addition, the treatments options remain limited for some patients with multiclass resistance and must be taken for life as they do not target the integrated proviral genome and fail to eradicate the virus in so called viral reservoirs. From this point of view, recent advances in genome editing offer encouraging prospects not only for blocking viral entry by modifying CCR5, but also for excising HIV sequences integrated into the genome [204]. One can hope that the combination of all these new therapeutic approaches will bring us closer to the development of an effective antiviral treatment against HIV that will be affordable for the broadest possible populations.

**Author contributions**

All authors equally contributed to the redaction of this mini-review. The authors thanks the reviewers for their constructive suggestions that contributed to improve the manuscript.

**Funding**

This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Paul Sabatier, the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Sidaction (13457) and the Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le Sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS) grant numbers: ANRS2018-02, ECTZ 118551/118554, ECTZ 205320/305352, ANRS ECTZ103104 and ECTZ101971. N.F is a PhD candidate at Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier supported by ANRS.

**Availability of data and materials**

Not applicable.

**Declarations**

**Ethics approval and consent to participate**

Not applicable.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare no scientific, commercial or financial competing interests.

Received: 27 September 2023 Accepted: 13 January 2024

Published online: 23 January 2024

**References**

1. Raman D, Sobolik-Delmaire T, Richmond A. Chemokines in health and disease. Exp Cell Res. 2011;317:575-89.

2. Drayman N, Glick Y, Ben-nun-Shaul O, Zer H, Zlotnick A, Gerber D, et al. Pathogens use structural mimicry of native host ligands as a mechanism for host receptor engagement. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14:63-73.

3. Lüttichau HR, Stine J, Boesen TP, Johnsen AH, Chantry D, Gerstoft J, et al. A highly selective CC chemokine receptor (CCR)8 antagonist encoded by the poxvirus molluscum contagiosum. J Exp Med. 2000;191:171-80.

4. Pontejo SM, Murphy PM. Chemokines encoded by herpesviruses. J Leukoc Biol. 2017;102:1199-217.

5. Chensue SW. Molecular machinations: chemokine signals in host-pathogen interactions. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14:821.

6. Sprenger H, Krause A, Kaufmann A, Priem S, Fabian D, Burmester GR, et al. Borrelia burgdorferi induces chemokines in human monocytes. Infect Immun. 1997;65:4384-8.

7. Thompson D, Sorenson J, Greenmyer J, Brisset CA, Watt JA. The Lyme disease bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, stimulates an inflammatory response in human choroid plexus epithelial cells. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0234993.

8. Secchiero P, Zella D, Capitani S, Gallo RC, Zauli G. Extracellular HIV-1 tat protein up-regulates the expression of surface CXC-chemokine receptor 4 in resting CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 1999;162:2427-31.

9. Atasheva S, Shayakhmetov DM. Cytokine responses to adenovirus and adenovirus vectors. Viruses. 2022;14:888.

10. Déruaz M, Frauenschuh A, Alessandri AL, Dias JM, Coelho FM, Russo RC, et al. Ticks produce highly selective chemokine binding proteins with antiinflammatory activity. J Exp Med. 2008;205:2019-31.

11. Denisov SS, Ippel JH, Heinzmann ACA, Koenen RR, Ortega-Gomez A, Soehlein O, et al. Tick saliva protein evasin-3 modulates chemotaxis by disrupting CXCL8 interactions with glycosaminoglycans and CXCR2. J Biol Chem. 2019;294:12370-9.

12. Smith P, Fallon RE, Mangan NE, Walsh CM, Saraiva M, Sayers JR, et al. Schistosoma mansoni secretes a chemokine binding protein with antiinflammatory activity. J Exp Med. 2005;202:1319-25.

13. Ofir-Birin Y, Ben Ami Pilo H, Cruz Camacho A, Rudik A, Rivkin A, Revach O-Y, et al. Malaria parasites both repress host CXCL10 and use it as a cue for growth acceleration. Nat Commun. 2021;12:4851.

14. Lambey P, Otun O, Cong X, Hoh F, Brunel L, Verdié P, et al. Structural insights into recognition of chemokine receptors by *Staphylococcus aureus* leukotoxins. Elife. 2022;11:e72555.

15. Guo X, Feng Y, Zhao X, Qiao S, Ma Z, Li Z, et al. Coronavirus porcine epidemic diarrhea virus utilizes chemokine interleukin-8 to facilitate viral replication by regulating Ca2+ flux. J Virol. 2023;97:e0029223.

16. Koyanagi N, Kawaguchi Y. Evasion of the cell-mediated immune response by alphaherpesviruses. Viruses. 2020;12:1354.

17. Rosenkilde MM, Tsutsumi N, Knerr JM, Kildetal DF, Garcia KC. Viral G protein-coupled receptors encoded by β- and γ-herpesviruses. Annu Rev Virol. 2022;9:329-51.

18. Johnson SM, McNally BA, Ioannidis I, Flano E, Teng MN, Oomens AG, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus uses CX3CR1 as a receptor on primary human airway epithelial cultures. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:e1005318.

19. Heidarieh H, Alcamí A. Mechanism of action of the viral chemokine-binding protein E163 from ectromelia virus. J Biol Chem. 2018;293:17418-29.

20. Alcamí A, Saraiva M. Chemokine binding proteins encoded by pathogens. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;666:167-79.

21. Dunlop LR, Oehlberg KA, Reid JJ, Avci D, Rosengard AM. Variola virus immune evasion proteins. Microbes Infect. 2003;5:1049-56.

22. Carfi A, Smith CA, Smolak PJ, McGrew J, Wiley DC. Structure of a soluble secreted chemokine inhibitor vCCI (p35) from cowpox virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:12379-83.

23. Hernáez B, Alonso-Lobo JM, Montanuy I, Fischer C, Sauer S, Sigal L, et al. A virus-encoded type I interferon decoy receptor enables evasion of host immunity through cell-surface binding. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5440.

24. Nijmeijer S, Leurs R, Smit MJ, Vischer HF. The Epstein-Barr virus-encoded G protein-coupled receptor BILF1 hetero-oligomerizes with human CXCR4, scavenges Gai proteins, and constitutively impairs CXCR4 functioning. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:29632-41.

25. Wang D, Bresnahan W, Shenk T. Human cytomegalovirus encodes a highly specific RANTES decoy receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:16642-7.

26. Gershengorn MC, Geras-Raaka E, Varma A, Clark-Lewis I. Chemokines activate Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus G protein-coupled receptor in mammalian cells in culture. J Clin Invest. 1998;102:1469-72.

27. Vischer HF, Nijmeijer S, Smit MJ, Leurs R. Viral hijacking of human receptors through heterodimerization. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;377:93-7.

28. Wu Y, Yoder A. Chemokine coreceptor signaling in HIV-1 infection and pathogenesis. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5:e1000520.
29. Heidarieh H, Hernández B, Alcamí A. Immune modulation by virus-encoded secreted chemokine binding proteins. Virus Res. 2015;209:67–75.

30. Pontejo SM, Murphy PM, Pease JE. Chemokine subversion by human herpesviruses. J Innate Immun. 2018;10:465–78.

31. Alonzo F, Kozhaya L, Rawlings SA, Reyes-Robles T, DuMont AL, Myszka DG, et al. CCR5 is a receptor for *Staphylococcus aureus* leukotoxin ED. Nature. 2013;493:51–5.

32. Green G, Johnson SM, Costello H, Brakel K, Harder O, Oomens AG, et al. CX3CR1 is a receptor for human respiratory syncytial virus in cotton rats. J Virol. 2021;95:e0001021.

33. Zhivaki D, Lemoine S, Lim A, Morva A, Vidalain P-O, Schandene L, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus infects regulatory b cells in human neonates via chemokine receptor CX3CR1 and promotes lung disease severity. Immunity. 2017;46:301–14.

34. Feng Z, Xu L, Xie Z. Receptors for respiratory syncytial virus infection and host factors regulating the life cycle of respiratory syncytial virus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:858629.

35. Dragic T, Litwin V, Allaway G, Martin S, Huang Y, Nagashima K, et al. HIV-1 entry into CD4 sup + cells is mediated by the chemokine receptor CC-CKR-5. Nature. 1996;381:667–73.

36. Deng H, Liu R, Ellmeier W, Choe S, Unutmaz D, Burkhart M, et al. Identification of a major co-receptor for primary isolates of HIV-1. Nature. 1996;381:661–6.

37. Dumas F, Preira P, Salomé L. Membrane organization of virus and target cell plays a role in HIV entry. Biochimie. 2014;107(Pt A):22–7.

38. Dumas F, Haanappel E. Lipids in infectious diseases—the case of AIDS and tuberculosis. Biochim Et Biophys Acta (BBA) Biomemb. 2017;1859:1636–47.

39. François F, Klotman ME. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase regulates human immunodeficiency virus type 1 replication following viral entry in primary CD4+ T lymphocytes and macrophages. J Virol. 2003;77:2539–49.

40. Nickoloff-Bybel EA, Festa L, Meucci O, Gaskill PJ. Co-receptor signaling in the pathogenesis of neuroHIV. Retrovirology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12977-021-00569-x.

41. Lucera MB, Fleissner Z, Tabler CO, Schlatzer DM, Troyer Z, Tilton JC. HIV signaling through CD4 and CCR5 activates Rho family GTPases that are required for optimal infection of primary CD4+ T cells. Retrovirology. 2017;14:4.

42. Dufloo J, Bruel T, Schwartz O. HIV-1 cell-to-cell transmission and broadly neutralizing antibodies. Retrovirology. 2018;15:51.

43. Tsegaye TS, Pöhlmann S. The multiple facets of HIV attachment to dendritic cell lectins. Cell Microbiol. 2010;12:1553–61.

44. Lambert AA, Barabé F, Gilbert C, Tremblay MJ. DCIR-mediated enhancement of HIV-1 infection requires the ITIM-associated signal transduction pathway. Blood. 2011;117:6589–99.

45. Izquierdo-Useros N, Lorizate M, McLaren PJ, Telenti A, Kräusslich H-G, Martinez-Picado J. HIV-1 capture and transmission by dendritic cells: the role of viral glycolipids and the cellular receptor Siglec-1. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1004146.

46. Shaw GM, Hunter E. HIV transmission. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012;2:a006965.

47. Keele BF, Giorgi EE, Salazar-Gonzalez JF, Decker JM, Pham KT, Salazar MG, et al. Identification and characterization of transmitted and early founder virus envelopes in primary HIV-1 infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:7552–7.

48. Joseph SB, Swanstrom R. The evolution of HIV-1 entry phenotypes as a guide to changing target cells. J Leukoc Biol. 2018;103:421–31.

49. Koot M, Keet IP, Vos AH, de Goede RE, Roos MT, Coutinho RA, et al. Prognostic value of HIV-1 syncytium-inducing phenotype for rate of CD4+ cell depletion and progression to AIDS. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:681–8.

50. Connor RI, Sheridan KE, Ceradini D, Choe S, Landau NR. Change in coreceptor use correlates with disease progression in HIV-1-infected individuals. J Exp Med. 1997;185:621–8.

51. Connell BJ, Hermans LE, Wensing AMJ, Schellens I, Schipper PJ, van Ham PM, et al. Immune activation correlates with and predicts CXCR4 co-receptor tropism switch in HIV-1 infection. Sci Rep. 2020;10:15866.

52. Moyle GJ, Wildfire A, Mandalia S, Mayer H, Goodrich J, Whitcomb J, et al. Epidemiology and predictive factors for chemokine receptor use in HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:866–72.

53. Weinberger AD, Perelson AS. Persistence and emergence of X4 virus in HIV infection. Math Biosci Eng. 2011;8:605–26.

54. Wilen CB, Tilton JC, Doms RW. HIV: cell binding and entry. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012;2:a006866.

55. Hwang SS, Boyle TJ, Lyerly HK, Cullen BR. Identification of the envelope V3 loop as the primary determinant of cell tropism in HIV-1. Science. 1991;253:71–4.

56. Garcia-Perez J, Staropoli I, Azoulay S, Heinrich J-T, Casajero A, Colin P, et al. A single-residue change in the HIV-1 V3 loop associated with maraviroc resistance impairs CCR5 binding affinity while increasing replicative capacity. Retrovirology. 2015;12:50.

57. LaRosa GJ, Davide JP, Weinhold K, Waterbury JA, Profy AT, Lewis JA, et al. Conserved sequence and structural elements in the HIV-1 principal neutralizing determinant. Science. 1990;249:932–5.

58. Wahlberg J, Albert J, Lundeberg J, Von Gegerfelt A, Broliden K, Utter G, et al. Analysis of the V3 loop in neutralization-resistant human immuno-deficiency virus type 1 variants by direct solid-phase DNA sequencing. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir. 1991;7:983–90.

59. Colin P, Zhou Z, Staropoli I, Garcia-Perez J, Gasser R, Armani-Tourret M, et al. CCR5 structural plasticity shapes HIV-1 phenotypic properties. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14:e1007432.

60. Weis WI, Kobilka BK. The molecular basis of G protein-coupled receptor activation. Annu Rev Biochem. 2018;87:897–919.

61. Ring AM, Manglik A, Kruse AC, Enos MD, Weis WI, Garcia KC, et al. Adrenaline-activated structure of β2-adrenoceptor stabilized by an engineered nanobody. Nature. 2013;502:575–9.

62. Rasmussen SGF, DeVree BT, Zou Y, Kruse AC, Chung KY, Kobilka TS, et al. Crystal structure of the β2 adrenergic receptor–Gs protein complex. Nature. 2011;477:549–55.

63. Koehl A, Hu H, Maeda S, Zhang Y, Qu Q, Paggi JM, et al. Structure of the μ-opioid receptor–Gi protein complex. Nature. 2018;558:547–52.

64. Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SGF, Thian FS, Kobilka TS, et al. High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human β2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science. 2007;318:1258–65.

65. Urvas L, Kellenberger E. Structural insights into molecular recognition and receptor activation in chemokine-chemokine receptor complexes. J Med Chem. 2023;66:7070–85.

66. Casiraghi M. Biophysical investigations of class A GPCRs. Biochimie. 2022;50300–9084(22):00256–65.

67. Tan Q, Zhu Y, Li J, Chen Z, Han GW, Kufareva I, et al. Structure of the CCR5 chemokine receptor—HIV entry inhibitor maraviroc complex. Science. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241475.

68. Wu B, Chien EYT, Mol CD, Fenalti G, Liu W, Katritch V, et al. Structures of the CXCR4 chemokine GPCR with small-molecule and cyclic peptide antagonists. Science. 2010;330:1066–71.

69. Garavelli JS. The RESID database of protein modifications as a resource and annotation tool. Proteomics. 2004;4:1527–33.

70. Bannert N, Craig S, Farzan M, Sogah D, Santo NV, Choe H, et al. Sialylated O-glycans and sulfated tyrosines in the NH2-terminal domain of CC chemokine receptor 5 contribute to high affinity binding of chemokines. J Exp Med. 2001;194:1661–73.

71. Patwardhan A, Cheng N, Trejo J. Post-translational modifications of G protein-coupled receptors control cellular signaling dynamics in space and time. Pharmacol Rev. 2021;73:120–51.

72. Cormier EG, Persuh M, Thompson DA, Lin SW, Sakmar TP, Olson WC, et al. Specific interaction of CCR5 amino-terminal domain peptides containing sulfotyrosines with HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp120. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:5762–7.

73. Farzan M, Mirzabekov T, Kolchinsky P, Wyatt R, Cayabyab M, Gerard NP, et al. Tyrosine sulfation of the amino terminus of CCR5 facilitates HIV-1 entry. Cell. 1999;96:667–76.

74. Scurci I, Akondi KB, Pinheiro I, Paolini-Bertrand M, Borgeat A, Cerini F, et al. CCR5 tyrosine sulfation heterogeneity generates cell surface receptor subpopulations with different ligand binding properties. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj. 2021;1865:129753.

75. Abayev M, Rodrigues JPGLM, Srivastava G, Arshava B, Jaremko Ł, Jaremko M, et al. The solution structure of monomeric CCL5 in complex with a doubly sulfated N-terminal segment of CCR5. FEBS J. 2018;285:1988–2003.
76. Kessler N, Akabayov SR, Moseri A, Cohen LS, Sakhapov D, Bolton D, et al. Allovalency observed by transferred NOE: interactions of sulfated tyrosine residues in the N-terminal segment of CCR5 with the CCL5 chemokine. FEBS J. 2021;288:1648–63.

77. Huang C-C, Lam SN, Acharya P, Tang M, Xiang S-H, Hussan SS-U, et al. Structures of the CCR5 N terminus and of a tyrosine-sulfated antibody with HIV-1 gp120 and CD4. Science. 2007;317:1930–4.

78. Farzan M, Babcock GJ, Vasilieva N, Wright PL, Kiprilov E, Mirzabekov T, et al. The role of post-translational modifications of the CXCR4 amino terminus in stromal-derived factor 1α association and HIV-1 entry *. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:29484–9.

79. Blanpain C, Wittamer V, Vanderwinden JM, Boom A, Renneboog B, Lee B, et al. Palmitoylation of CCR5 is critical for receptor trafficking and efficient activation of intracellular signaling pathways. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:23795–804.

80. Percherancier Y, Planchenault T, Valenzuela-Fernandez A, Virelizier JL, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Bachelerie F. Palmitoylation-dependent control of degradation, life span, and membrane expression of the CCR5 receptor. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:31936–44.

81. Jansen M, Beaumelle B. How palmitoylation affects trafficking and signaling of membrane receptors. Biol Cell. 2022;114:61–72.

82. Zhang B, Li S, Shui W. Post-translational modifications of G protein-coupled receptors revealed by proteomics and structural biology. Front Chem. 2022;10:843502.

83. Chini B, Parenti M. G-protein-coupled receptors, cholesterol and palmitoylation: facts about fats. J Mol Endocrinol. 2009;42:371–9.

84. Joseph M, Nagaraj R. Interaction of peptides corresponding to fatty acylation sites in proteins with model membranes. J Biol Chem. 1995;270:16749–55.

85. Chalhoub G, McCormick PJ. Palmitoylation and G-protein coupled receptors. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2022;193:195–211.

86. Charollais J, Van Der Goot FG. Palmitoylation of membrane proteins (Review). Mol Membr Biol. 2009;26:55–66.

87. Wedegaertner PB, Chu DH, Wilson PT, Levis MJ, Bourne HR. Palmitoylation is required for signaling functions and membrane attachment of Gq alpha and Gs alpha. J Biol Chem. 1993;268:25001–8.

88. Kraft K, Olbrich H, Majoul I, Mack M, Proudfoot A, Oppermann M. Characterization of sequence determinants within the carboxyl-terminal domain of chemokine receptor CCR5 that regulate signaling and receptor internalization. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:34408–18.

89. Boncompain G, Herit F, Tessier S, Lescure A, Del Nery E, Gestraud P, et al. Targeting CCR5 trafficking to inhibit HIV-1 infection. Sci Adv. 2019;5:0821.

90. Levental I, Lingwood D, Grzybek M, Coskun U, Simons K. Palmitoylation regulates raft affinity for the majority of integral raft proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:22050–4.

91. Blaskovic S, Blanc M, van der Goot FG. What does S-palmitoylation do to membrane proteins? FEBS J. 2013;280:2766–74.

92. Syrovatkina V, Alegre KO, Dey R, Huang X-Y. Regulation, signaling and physiological functions of G-proteins. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:3850–68.

93. Lorenzen E, Ceraudo E, Berchiche YA, Rico CA, Fürstenberg A, Sakmar TP, et al. G protein subtype-specific signaling bias in a series of CCR5 chemokine analogs. Sci Signal. 2018;11:6152.

94. Strizki JM, Tremblay C, Xu S, Wojcik L, Wagner N, Gonsiorek W, et al. Discovery and characterization of vicrivirovi (SCH 417690), a CCR5 antagonist with potent activity against human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:4911–9.

95. Dorr P, Westby M, Dobbs S, Griffin P, Irvine B, Macartney M, et al. Maraviroc (UK-427,857), a potent, orally bioavailable, and selective small-molecule inhibitor of chemokine receptor CCR5 with broad-spectrum anti-human immunodeficiency virus type 1 activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:4721–32.

96. Baba M, Nishimura O, Kanzaki N, Okamoto M, Sawada H, Iizawa Y, et al. A small-molecule, nonpeptide CCR5 antagonist with highly potent and selective anti-HIV-1 activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:5698–703.

97. Berro R, Yasmeen A, Abrol R, Trzaskowski B, Abi-Habib S, Grunbeck A, et al. Use of G-protein-coupled and -uncoupled CCR5 receptors by CCR5 inhibitor-resistant and -sensitive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants. J Virol. 2013;87:6569–81.

98. Garcia-Perez J, Rueda P, Staropoli I, Kellenberger E, Alcami J, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, et al. New insights into the mechanisms whereby low

molecular weight CCR5 ligands inhibit HIV-1 infection. J Biol Chem. 2011;286:4978–90.

99. Berro R, Klasse PJ, Lascano D, Flegler A, Nagashima KA, Sanders RW, et al. Multiple CCR5 conformations on the cell surface are used differentially by human immunodeficiency viruses resistant or sensitive to CCR5 inhibitors. J Virol. 2011;85:8227–40.

100. Colin P, Bénureau Y, Staropoli I, Wang Y, Gonzalez N, Alcami J, et al. HIV-1 exploits CCR5 conformational heterogeneity to escape inhibition by chemokines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:9475–80.

101. Flegler AJ, Cianci GC, Hope TJ. CCR5 conformations are dynamic and modulated by localization, trafficking and G protein association. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e89056.

102. Zhang H, Chen K, Tan Q, Shao Q, Han S, Zhang C, et al. Structural basis for chemokine recognition and receptor activation of chemokine receptor CCR5. Nat Commun. 2021;12:4151.

103. Yao XJ, Vélez Ruiz G, Whorton MR, Rasmussen SGF, DeVree BT, Deupi X, et al. The effect of ligand efficacy on the formation and stability of a GPCR-G protein complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:9501–6.

104. Balabanian K, Harriague J, Décrion C, Lagane B, Shorte S, Baleux F, et al. CXCR4-tropic HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein functions as a viral chemokine in unstimulated primary CD4+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2004;173:7150–60.

105. Yoder A, Yu D, Dong L, Iyer SR, Xu X, Kelly J, et al. HIV envelope-CXCR4 signaling activates cofilin to overcome cortical actin restriction in resting CD4 T cells. Cell. 2008;134:782–92.

106. Smith LK, Babcock IW, Minamide LS, Shaw AE, Bamburg JR, Kuhn TB. Direct interaction of HIV gp120 with neuronal CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors induces cofilin-actin rod pathology via a cellular prion protein- and NOX-dependent mechanism. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0248309.

107. Gao R, Fang Q, Zhang X, Xu Q, Ye H, Guo W, et al. R5 HIV-1 gp120 activates p38 MAPK to induce rat cardiomyocyte injury by the CCR5 coreceptor. Pathobiology. 2019;86:274–84.

108. Wu Y. Flow cytometry-based quantification of HIV-induced T cell chemotactic response. Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1407:207–15.

109. Del Cornò M, Donninelli G, Varano B, Da Sacco L, Masotti A, Gessani S. HIV-1 gp120 activates the STAT3/interleukin-6 axis in primary human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. J Virol. 2014;88:11045–55.

110. Spear M, Guo J, Turner A, Yu D, Wang W, Meltzer B, et al. HIV-1 triggers WAVE2 phosphorylation in primary CD4 T cells and macrophages, mediating Arp2/3-dependent nuclear migration. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:6949–59.

111. Davis CB, Dikic I, Unutmaz D, Hill CM, Arthos J, Siani MA, et al. Signal transduction due to HIV-1 envelope interactions with chemokine receptors CXCR4 or CCR5. J Exp Med. 1997;186:1793–8.

112. Li L, Lim RZL, Lee LSU, Chew NSY. HIV glycoprotein gp120 enhances mesenchymal stem cell migration by upregulating CXCR4 expression. Biochim Et Biophys Acta Gen Subj. 2018;1862:1790–800.

113. Shenoy SK, Lefkowitz RJ. β-arrestin-mediated receptor trafficking and signal transduction. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2011;32:521–33.

114. Kinter AL, Umscheid CA, Arthos J, Cicala C, Lin Y, Jackson R, et al. HIV envelope induces virus expression from resting CD4+ T cells isolated from HIV-infected individuals in the absence of markers of cellular activation or apoptosis. J Immunol. 2003;170:2449–55.

115. Juno JA, Fowke KR. Clarifying the role of G protein signaling in HIV infection: new approaches to an old question. AIDS Rev. 2010;12:164–76.

116. Brandenberg OF, Magnus C, Regoes RR, Trkola A. The HIV-1 entry process: a stoichiometric view. Trends Microbiol. 2015;23:763–74.

117. Lin Y-L, Mettling C, Portales P, Reynes J, Clot J, Corbeau P. Cell surface CCR5 density determines the postentry efficiency of R5 HIV-1 infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:15590–5.

118. Lin Y-L, Mettling C, Portalès P, Réant B, Robert-Hebmann V, Reynes J, et al. The efficiency of R5 HIV-1 infection is determined by CD4 T-cell surface CCR5 density through Gα-protein signalling. AIDS. 2006;20:1369–77.

119. Platt EJ, Wehrly K, Kuhmann SE, Chesebro B, Kabat D. Effects of CCR5 and CD4 cell surface concentrations on infections by *Macrophage* isolates of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. 1998;72:2855–64.

120. Reynes J, Portales P, Segondy M, Baillat V, André P, Réant B, et al. CD4+ T cell surface CCR5 density as a determining factor of virus load in
persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:927-32.

121. Lelièvre J-D, Petit F, Perrin L, Mammano F, Arnoult D, Ameisen J-C, et al. The density of coreceptors at the surface of CD4+T cells contributes to the extent of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 viral replication-mediated T cell death. AIDS Res Hum Retrovir. 2004;20:1230-43.

122. Yang X, Jiao Y, Wang R, Ji Y, Zhang H, Zhang Y, et al. High CCR5 density on central memory CD4+T cells in acute HIV-1 infection is mostly associated with rapid disease progression. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e49526.

123. Claireaux M, Robinot R, Kervevan J, Patgaonkar M, Staropoli I, Brelot A, et al. Low CCR5 expression protects HIV-specific CD4+T cells of elite controllers from viral entry. Nat Commun. 2022;13:521.

124. Masquelier C, Servais J-Y, Rusanganwa E, Roman F, Havuga E, Servais J, et al. A novel 24-base pair deletion in the coding region of CCR5 in an African population. AIDS. 2007;21:111-3.

125. Arendt V, Amand M, Iserentant G, Lemaire M, Masquelier C, Ndayisaba GF, et al. Predominance of the heterozygous CCR5 delta-24 deletion in African individuals resistant to HIV infection might be related to a defect in CCR5 addressing at the cell surface. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22:e25384.

126. Samson M, Libert F, Doranz BJ, Rucker J, Liesnard C, Farber CM, et al. Resistance to HIV-1 infection in caucasian individuals bearing mutant alleles of the CCR-5 chemokine receptor gene. Nature. 1996;382:722-5.

127. Liu R, Paxton WA, Choe S, Ceradini D, Martin SR, Horuk R, et al. Homozygous defect in HIV-1 coreceptor accounts for resistance of some multiply-exposed individuals to HIV-1 infection. Cell. 1996;86:367-77.

128. Dean M, Carrington M, Winkler C, Huttley GA, Smith MW, Allikmets R, et al. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Hemophilia growth and development study, multicenter AIDS cohort study, multicenter hemophilia cohort study, San Francisco city cohort, ALIVE study. Science. 1996;273:1856-62.

129. Stewart GJ, Ashton LJ, Biti RA, Ffrench RA, Bennetts BH, Newcombe NR, et al. Increased frequency of CCR-5 Δ32 heterozygotes among long-term non-progressors with HIV-1 infection. AIDS. 1997;11:1833-8.

130. Kuhmann SE, Platt EJ, Kozak SL, Kabat D. Cooperation of multiple CCR5 coreceptors is required for infections by human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. 2000;74:7005-15.

131. Baker A-M, Saulière A, Gaibelet G, Lagane B, Mazères S, Fourage M, et al. CD4 interacts constitutively with multiple CCR5 at the plasma membrane of living cells. A fluorescence recovery after photobleaching at variable radii approach. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:35163-8.

132. Wu L, Paxton WA, Kassam N, Ruffing N, Rottman JB, Sullivan N, et al. CCR5 levels and expression pattern correlate with infectability by macrophage-tropic HIV-1, in vitro. J Exp Med. 1997;185:1681-91.

133. Bleul CC, Wu L, Hoxie JA, Springer TA, Mackay CR. The HIV coreceptors CXCR4 and CCR5 are differentially expressed and regulated on human T lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:1925-30.

134. Joly M, Pinto JM. CXCR4 and CCR5 regulation and expression patterns on T- and monocyte-macrophage cell lineages: implications for susceptibility to infection by HIV-1. Math Biosci. 2005;195:92-126.

135. van Eekeren LE, Matzaraki V, Zhang Z, van de Wijer L, Blaauw MJT, de Jonge MI, et al. People with HIV have higher percentages of circulating CCR5+CD8+T cells and lower percentages of CCR5+regulatory T cells. Sci Rep. 2022;12:11425.

136. Dale NC, Johnstone EKM, Pfleger KDG. GPCR heteromers: an overview of their classification, function and physiological relevance. Front Endocrinol. 2022;13:931573.

137. Pin J-P, Neubig R, Bouvier M, Devi L, Filizola M, Javitch JA, et al. International union of basic and clinical pharmacology. LXVII. Recommendations for the recognition and nomenclature of G protein-coupled receptor heteromultimers. Pharmacol Rev. 2007;59:5-13.

138. Ferré S, Baler R, Bouvier M, Caron MG, Devi LA, Durroux T, et al. Building a new conceptual framework for receptor heteromers. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5:131-4.

139. Muñoz LM, Lucas P, Holgado BL, Barroso R, Vega B, Rodríguez-Frade JM, et al. Receptor oligomerization: a pivotal mechanism for regulating chemokine function. Pharmacol Ther. 2011;131:351-8.

140. Stephens B, Handel TM. Chemokine receptor oligomerization and allostery. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2013;115:375-420.

141. Martínez-Muñoz L, Villares R, Rodríguez-Fernández JL, Rodríguez-Frade JM, Mellado M. Remodeling our concept of chemokine receptor function: from monomers to oligomers. J Leukoc Biol. 2018;104:323-31.

142. Issafras H, Angers S, Bulenger S, Blanpain C, Parmentier M, Labbé-Jullié C, et al. Constitutive agonist-independent CCR5 oligomerization and antibody-mediated clustering occurring at physiological levels of receptors. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:34666-73.

143. Nakano Y, Monde K, Terasawa H, Yuan Y, Yusa K, Harada S, et al. Preferential recognition of monomeric CCR5 expressed in cultured cells by the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp120 for the entry of R5 HIV-1. Virology. 2014;452-453:117-24.

144. Li J, Ding Y, Liu H, He H, Yu D, Wang X, et al. Oligomerization-enhanced receptor-ligand binding revealed by dual-color simultaneous tracking on living cell membranes. J Phys Chem Lett. 2021;12:8164-9.

145. Momboisse F, Nardi G, Colin P, Hery M, Cordeiro N, Blachier S, et al. Tracking receptor motions at the plasma membrane reveals distinct effects of ligands on CCR5 dynamics depending on its dimerization status. Elife. 2022;11:e76281.

146. Jin J, Momboisse F, Boncompain G, Koensgen F, Zhou Z, Cordeiro N, et al. CCR5 adopts three homodimeric conformations that control cell surface delivery. Sci Signal. 2018;11:12869.

147. El-Asmar L, Springael J-Y, Ballet S, Andrieu EU, Vassart G, Parmentier M. Evidence for negative binding cooperativity within CCR5-CCR2b heterodimers. Mol Pharmacol. 2005;67:460-9.

148. Springael J-Y, Le Minh PN, Urizar E, Costagliola S, Vassart G, Parmentier M. Allosteric modulation of binding properties between units of chemokine receptor homo- and hetero-oligomers. Mol Pharmacol. 2006;69:1652-61.

149. Martínez-Muñoz L, Barroso R, Dyrhaug SY, Navarro G, Lucas P, Soriano SF, et al. CCR5/CD4/CXCR4 oligomerization prevents HIV-1 gp120IIB binding to the cell surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:E1960-1969.

150. Möller J, Isbilir A, Sungkaworn T, Osberg B, Karathanasis C, Sunkara V, et al. Single-molecule analysis reveals agonist-specific dimer formation of μ-opioid receptors. Nat Chem Biol. 2020;16:946-54.

151. Tabor A, Weisenburger S, Banerjee A, Purkayastha N, Kaindl JM, Hübner H, et al. Visualization and ligand-induced modulation of dopamine receptor dimerization at the single molecule level. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33233.

152. Laganowsky A, Reading E, Allison TM, Ulmschneider MB, Degiacomi MT, Baldwin AJ, et al. Membrane proteins bind lipids selectively to modulate their structure and function. Nature. 2014;510:172-5.

153. Levental I, Lyman E. Regulation of membrane protein structure and function by their lipid nano-environment. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-022-00524-4.

154. Dawalíby R, Trubbia C, Delporte C, Masureel M, Van Antwerpen P, Kobila BK, et al. Allosteric regulation of G protein-coupled receptor activity by phospholipids. Nat Chem Biol. 2016;12:35-9.

155. Jakubík J, El-Fakahany EE. Allosteric modulation of GPCRs of class A by cholesterol. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:1953.

156. Oates J, Watts A. Uncovering the intimate relationship between lipids, cholesterol and GPCR activation. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2011;21:802-7.

157. Calmet P, Cullin C, Cortès S, Vang M, Caudy N, Baccouch R, et al. Cholesterol impacts chemokine CCR5 receptor ligand-binding activity. FEBS J. 2020;287:2367-85.

158. Cardaba CM, Kerr JS, Mueller A. CCR5 internalisation and signalling have different dependence on membrane lipid raft integrity. Cell Signal. 2008;20:1687-94.

159. Ablan S, Rawat SS, Viard M, Wang JM, Puri A, Blumenthal R. The role of cholesterol and sphingolipids in chemokine receptor function and HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein-mediated fusion. Virol J. 2006;3:104.

160. Gardeta SR, García-Cuesta EM, D'Agostino G, Soler Palacios B, Quijada-Freire A, Lucas P, et al. Sphingomyelin depletion inhibits CXCR4 dynamics and CXCL12-mediated directed cell migration in human T cells. Front Immunol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.925559.

161. Denard B, Han S, Kim J, Ross EM, Ye J. Regulating G protein-coupled receptors by topological inversion. Elife. 2019;8:e40234.

162. Castro BM, Prieto M, Silva LC. Ceramide: a simple sphingolipid with unique biophysical properties. Prog Lipid Res. 2014;54:53-67.

163. Simons K, Sampaio JL. Membrane organization and lipid rafts. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011;3:a004697.
164. Chazal N, Gerlier D. Virus entry, assembly, budding, and membrane rafts. *Microbiol Mol Biol Rev.* 2003;67:226–37.

165. Parolini I, Topa S, Sorice M, Pace A, Ceddia P, Montesoro E, et al. Phorbol ester-induced disruption of the CD4-Lck complex occurs within a detergent-resistant microdomain of the plasma membrane. *Involve-ment of the translocation of activated protein kinase C isoforms. J Biol Chem.* 1999;274:14176–87.

166. Millán J, Cerny J, Horejsi V, Alonso MA. CD4 segregates into specific detergent-resistant T-cell membrane microdomains. *Tissue Antigens.* 1999;53:33–40.

167. Gaibelet G, Planchenault T, Mazères S, Dumas F, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Lopez A, et al. CD4 and CCR5 constitutively interact at the plasma membrane of living cells: a confocal fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based approach. *J Biol Chem.* 2006;281:37921–9.

168. Popik W, Alce TM, Au W-C. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 uses lipid raft-colocalized CD4 and chemokine receptors for productive entry into CD4(+) T cells. *J Virol.* 2002;76:4709–22.

169. Kozak SL, Heard JM, Kabat D. Segregation of CD4 and CXCR4 into distinct lipid microdomains in T lymphocytes suggests a mechanism for membrane destabilization by human immunodeficiency virus. *J Virol.* 2002;76:1802–15.

170. Kamiyama H, Yoshii H, Tanaka Y, Sato H, Yamamoto N, Kubo Y. Raft localization of CXCR4 is primarily required for X4-tropic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. *Virology.* 2009;386:23–31.

171. Nguyen DH, Taub D. Cholesterol is essential for macrophage inflammatory protein 1 beta binding and conformational integrity of CC chemokine receptor 5. *Blood.* 2002;99:4298–306.

172. Yang S-T, Kiessling V, Simmons JA, White JM, Tamm LK. HIV gp41-mediated membrane fusion occurs at edges of cholesterol-rich lipid domains. *Nat Chem Biol.* 2015;11:424–31.

173. Yang S-T, Kiessling V, Tamm LK. Line tension at lipid phase boundaries as driving force for HIV fusion peptide-mediated fusion. *Nat Commun.* 2016;7:11401.

174. Solloch UV, Lang K, Lange V, Böhme I, Schmidt AH, Sauter J. Frequencies of gene variant CCR5-Δ32 in 87 countries based on next-generation sequencing of 1.3 million individuals sampled from 3 national DKMS donor centers. *Human Immunol.* 2017;78:710–7.

175. Benkirane M, Jin DY, Chun RF, Koup RA, Jeang KT. Mechanism of trans-dominant inhibition of CCR5-mediated HIV-1 infection by ccr5delta32. *J Biol Chem.* 1997;272:30603–6.

176. Agrawal L, Lu X, Qingwen J, VanHorn-Ali Z, Nicolescu IV, McDermott DH, et al. Role for CCR5Delta32 protein in resistance to R5, R5X4, and X4 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in primary CD4+ cells. *J Virol.* 2004;78:2277–87.

177. Hütter G, Nowak D, Mossner M, Ganepola S, Müssig A, Allers K, et al. Long-term control of HIV by CCR5 Delta32/Delta32 stem-cell transplantation. *N Engl J Med.* 2009;360:692–8.

178. Gupta RK, Abdul-jawad S, McCoy LE, Mok HP, Peppa D, Salgado M, et al. HIV-1 remission following CCR5Δ32/Δ32 haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. *Nature.* 2019;568:244–8.

179. Ding J, Liu Y, Lai Y. Knowledge from London and Berlin: finding threads to a functional HIV cure. *Front Immunol.* 2021;12:688747.

180. Hsu J, Van Besien K, Glesby MJ, Coletti A, Pahwa SG, Warshaw M, et al. HIV-1 Remission With Ccr5Δ32Δ32 Haplo-Cord Transplant In A U.S. Woman:IMPACT P1107. Abstracts From CROI 2022 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections CROI 2022 Abstract eBook 2022. :26.

181. Jensen B-EO, Knops E, Cords L, Lübke N, Salgado M, Busman-Sahay K, et al. In-depth virological and immunological characterization of HIV-1 cure after CCR5Δ32/Δ32 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. *Nat Med.* 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02213-x.

182. Fischereeder M, Luckow B, Hochen B, Wüthrich RP, Rothenpieler U, Schneeberger H, et al. CC chemokine receptor 5 and renal-transplant survival. *The Lancet.* 2001;357:1758–61.

183. Ferrarini I, Rigo A, Gandini A, Vinante F. West nile virus encephalitis in haematological setting: report of two cases and a brief review of the literature. *Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis.* 2019;11:e2019033.

184. Baba M, Takashima K, Miyake H, Kanzaki N, Teshima K, Wang X, et al. TAK-652 inhibits CCR5-mediated human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection in vitro and has favorable pharmacokinetics in humans. *Antimicrob Agents Chemother.* 2005;49:4584–91.

185. Wolinsky SM, Veazey RS, Kunstman KJ, Klasse PJ, Dufour J, Marozsan AJ, et al. Effect of a CCR5 inhibitor on viral loads in macaques dual-infected with R5 and X4 primate immunodeficiency viruses. *Virology.* 2004;328:19–29.

186. Maeda K, Nakata H, Koh Y, Miyakawa T, Ogata H, Takaoka Y, et al. Spirodiketopiperazine-based CCR5 inhibitor which preserves CC-chemokine/CCR5 interactions and exerts potent activity against R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in vitro. *J Virol.* 2004;78:8654–62.

187. Kim MB, Giesler KE, Tahirovic YA, Truax VM, Liotta DC, Wilson LJ. CCR5 receptor antagonists in preclinical to phase II clinical development for treatment of HIV. *Expert Opin Investig Drugs.* 2016;25:1377–92.

188. Biswas P, Tambussi G, Lazzarin A. Access denied? The status of co-receptor inhibition to counter HIV entry. *Expert Opin Pharmacother.* 2007;8:923–33.

189. Kuritzkes D, Kar S, Kirkpatrick P. Maraviroc. *Nat Rev Drug Discovery.* 2008;7:15–6.

190. Lagane B, Garcia-Perez J, Kellenberger E. Modeling the allosteric modulation of CCR5 function by Maraviroc. *Drug Discov Today Technol.* 2013;10:e297–305.

191. Garcia-Perez J, Rueda P, Alcami J, Rognan D, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Lagane B, et al. Allosteric model of maraviroc binding to CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5). *J Biol Chem.* 2011;286:33409–21.

192. Moore JP, Kuritzkes DR. A pièce de resistance: how HIV-1 escapes small molecule CCR5 inhibitors. *Curr Opin HIV AIDS.* 2009;4:118–24.

193. Westby M, Smith-Burchnell C, Mori J, Lewis M, Mosley M, Stockdale M, et al. Reduced maximal inhibition in phenotypic susceptibility assays indicates that viral strains resistant to the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc utilize inhibitor-bound receptor for entry. *J Virol.* 2007;81:2359–71.

194. Pugach P, Marozsan AJ, Ketas TJ, Landes EL, Moore JP, Kuhmann SE. HIV-1 clones resistant to a small molecule CCR5 inhibitor use the inhibitor-bound form of CCR5 for entry. *Virology.* 2007;361:212–28.

195. Promsote W, DeMouth ME, Almasri CG, Pegu A. Anti-HIV-1 antibodies: an update. *BioDrugs.* 2020;34:121–32.

196. Li L, Sun T, Yang K, Zhang P, Jia WQ. Monoclonal CCR5 antibody for treatment of people with HIV infection. *Cochrane Database Syst Rev.* 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008439.pub2.

197. Lalezari J, Yadavalli GK, Para M, Richmond G, Dejesus E, Brown SJ, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of HGS004, a novel fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody against CCR5, in HIV-1-infected patients. *J Infect Dis.* 2008;197:721–7.

198. Venuti A, Pastori C, Lopalco L. The role of natural antibodies to CC chemokine receptor 5 in HIV infection. *Front Immunol.* 2017;8:1358.

199. Kufel WD. Antibody-based strategies in HIV therapy. *Int J Antimicrob Agents.* 2020;56:106186.

200. Jacobson JM, Thompson MA, Lalezari JP, Saag MS, Zingman P, D'Ambrosio BS, et al. Anti-HIV-1 activity of weekly or biweekly treatment with subcutaneous PRO 140, a CCR5 monoclonal antibody. *J Infect Dis.* 2010;201:1481–7.

201. Jacobson JM, Lalezari JP, Thompson MA, Fichtenbaum CJ, Saag MS, Zingman BS, et al. Phase 2a study of the CCR5 monoclonal antibody PRO 140 administered intravenously to HIV-infected adults. *Antimicrob Agents Chemother.* 2010;54:4137–42.

202. Pfeifer N, Walter H, Lengauer T. Association between HIV-1 coreceptor usage and resistance to broadly neutralizing antibodies. *J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr.* 2014;67:107–12.

203. Lu Y, Happi Mbakam C, Song B, Bendavid E, Tremblay J-P. Improvements of nuclease and nickase gene modification techniques for the treatment of genetic diseases. *Front Genome Ed.* 2022;4:892769.

204. Freen-van Heeren JJ. Closing the door with CRISPR: genome editing of CCR5 and CXCR4 as a potential curative solution for HIV. *BioTech.* 2022;11:25.

205. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. *Science.* 2012;337:816–21.

206. Bhowmik R, Chaubey B. CRISPR/Cas9: a tool to eradicate HIV-1. *AIDS Res Ther.* 2022;19:58.

207. Wang W, Ye C, Liu J, Zhang D, Kimata JT, Zhou P. CCR5 gene disruption via lentiviral vectors expressing Cas9 and single guided RNA renders cells resistant to HIV-1 infection. *PLoS ONE.* 2014;9:e115987.

208. Tebas P, Jadlowsky JK, Shaw PA, Tian L, Esparza E, Brennan AL, et al. CCR5-edited CD4+ T cells augment HIV-specific immunity
to enable post-rebound control of HIV replication. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(e144486):144486.

209. Herskovitz J, Hasan M, Patel M, Blomberg WR, Cohen JD, Machhi J, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 mediated exonic disruption for HIV-1 elimination. EBioMedicine. 2021;73:103678.

210. Xu L, Wang J, Liu Y, Xie L, Su B, Mou D, et al. CRISPR-edited stem cells in a patient with HIV and acute lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1240–7.

211. Tebas P, Stein D, Tang WW, Frank J, Wang SQ, Lee G, et al. Gene editing of CCR5 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:901–10.

212. Cho SW, Kim S, Kim JM, Kim J-S. Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:230–2.

213. Cradick TJ, Fine EJ, Antico CJ, Bao G. CRISPR/Cas9 systems targeting β-globin and CCR5 genes have substantial off-target activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:9584–92.

214. Li S, Holguin L, Burnett JC. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene disruption of HIV-1 co-receptors confers broad resistance to infection in human T cells and humanized mice. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2022;24:321–31.

215. Ye L, Wang J, Beyer AI, Teque F, Cradick TJ, Qi Z, et al. Seamless modification of wild-type induced pluripotent stem cells to the natural CCR5Δ32 mutation confers resistance to HIV infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:9591–6.

216. Qi C, Li D, Jiang X, Jia X, Lu L, Wang Y, et al. Inducing CCR5Δ32/Δ32 homozygotes in the human jurkat CD4+ cell line and primary CD4+ Cells by CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology. Mol Ther Nucl Acids. 2018;12:267–74.

217. Jasinska AJ, Pandrea I, Apetrei C. CCR5 as a coreceptor for human immunodeficiency virus and simian immunodeficiency viruses: a prototypic love-hate affair. Front Immunol. 2022;13:835994.

218. Jacquemard C, Koensgen F, Colin P, Lagane B, Kellenberger E. Modeling of CCR5 recognition by HIV-1 gp120: how the viral protein exploits the conformational plasticity of the coreceptor. Viruses. 2021;13:1395.

219. Katritch V, Cherezov V, Stevens RC. Diversity and modularity of G protein-coupled receptor structures. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2012;33:17–27.

220. Weichseldorfer M, Tagaya Y, Reitz M, DeVico AL, Latinovic OS. Identifying CCR5 coreceptor populations permissive for HIV-1 entry and productive infection: implications for in vivo studies. J Transl Med. 2022;20:39.

221. Abrol R, Trzaskowski B, Goddard WA, Nesterov A, Olave I, Irons C. Ligand- and mutation-induced conformational selection in the CCR5 chemokine G protein-coupled receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:13040–5.

222. Lee B, Sharron M, Blanpain C, Doranz BJ, Vakili J, Setoh P, et al. Epitope mapping of CCR5 reveals multiple conformational states and distinct but overlapping structures involved in chemokine and coreceptor function. J Biol Chem. 1999;274:9617–26.

223. Kleist AB, Getschman AE, Ziarek JJ, Nevins AM, Gauthier P-A, Chevigné A, et al. New paradigms in chemokine receptor signal transduction: Moving beyond the two-site model. Biochem Pharmacol. 2016;114:53–68.

224. Juremalm M, Nilsson G. Chemokine receptor expression by mast cells. Chem Immunol Allergy. 2005;87:130–44.

225. Rottman JB, Ganley KP, Williams K, Wu L, Mackay CR, Ringler DJ. Cellular localization of the chemokine receptor CCR5. Correlation to cellular targets of HIV-1 infection. Am J Pathol. 1997;151:1341–51.

226. Fox JM, Kasprowicz R, Hartley O, Signoret N. CCR5 susceptibility to ligand-mediated down-modulation differs between human T lymphocytes and myeloid cells. J Leukoc Biol. 2015;98:59–71.

227. Lagane B, Ballet S, Planchenault T, Balabanian K, Le Poul E, Blanpain C, et al. Mutation of the DRY motif reveals different structural requirements for the CC chemokine receptor 5-mediated signaling and receptor endocytosis. Mol Pharmacol. 2005;67:1966–76.

228. Jin J, Colin P, Staropoli I, Lima-Fernandes E, Ferret C, Demir A, et al. Targeting spare CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) as a principle to inhibit HIV-1 entry. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:19042–52.

229. Armani-Tourret M, Zhou Z, Gasser R, Staropoli I, Cantaloube-Ferrieu V, Benureau Y, et al. Mechanisms of HIV-1 evasion to the antiviral activity of chemokine CXCL12 indicate potential links with pathogenesis. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17:e1009526.

230. Zheng Y, Han GW, Abagyan R, Wu B, Stevens RC, Cherezov V, et al. Structure of CC chemokine receptor 5 with a potent chemokine antagonist reveals mechanisms of chemokine recognition and molecular mimicry by HIV. Immunity. 2017;46:1005-1017.e5.

231. Hemelaar J. Implications of HIV diversity for the HIV-1 pandemic. J Infect. 2013;66:391–400.

232. Tee KK, Thomson MM, Hemelaar J. Editorial: HIV-1 genetic diversity, volume II. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1007037.

233. Kawashima Y, Pfafferott K, Frater J, Matthews P, Payne R, Addo M, et al. Adaptation of HIV-1 to human leukocyte antigen class I. Nature. 2009;458:641–5.

234. Chawla A, Wang C, Patton C, Murray M, Punekar Y, de Ruiter A, et al. A review of long-term toxicity of antiretroviral treatment regimens and implications for an aging population. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;7:183–95.

235. Lopalco L. Natural anti-CCR5 antibodies in HIV-infection and -exposure. J Transl Med. 2011;9:S4.

236. Yoo KD, Cha R, Lee S, Kim JE, Kim KH, Lee JS, et al. Chemokine receptor 5 blockade modulates macrophage trafficking in renal ischaemic-reperfusion injury. J Cell Mol Med. 2020;24:5515–27.

**Publisher's Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.