4.6 Article

Laboratory strains of murine cytomegalovirus are genetically similar to but phenotypically distinct from wild strains of virus

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 13, Pages 6689-6696

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00160-08

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Murine cytomegalovirus (MCMV) is widely used to model human cytomegalovirus (HCW) infection. However, it is known that serially passaged laboratory strains of HCMV differ significantly from recently isolated clinical strains of HCW. It is therefore axiomatic that clinical models of HCMV using serially passaged strains of MCMV may not be able to fully represent the complexities of the system they are attempting to model and may not fully represent the complex biology of MCW. To determine whether genotypic and phenotypic differences also exist between laboratory strains of MCW and wild derived strains of MCMV, we sequenced the genomes of three low-passage strains of MCW, plus the laboratory strain, K181. We coupled this genetic characterization to their phenotypic characteristics. In contrast to what is seen with HCMV (and rhesus CMV), there were no major genomic rearrangements in the MCMV genomes. In addition, the genome size was remarkably conserved between MCMV strains with no major insertions or deletions. There was, however, significant sequence variation between strains of MCMV, particularly at the genomic termini. These more subtle genetic differences led to considerable differences in in vivo replication with some strains of MCMV, such as WP15B, replicating preferentially in otherwise-MCMV-resistant C57BL/6 mice. CBA mice were no more resistant to MCW than C57BL/6 mice and for some MCMV strains appeared to control infection less well than C57BL/6 mice. It is apparent that the previously described host resistance patterns of inbred mice and MCW are not consistently applicable for all MCMV strains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available