4.5 Article

Pathogenicity and complete genome sequence analysis of the mud crab dicistrovirus-1

Journal

VIRUS RESEARCH
Volume 171, Issue 1, Pages 8-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2012.10.002

Keywords

Mud crab dicistrovirus-1; Scylla paramamosain; Complete genome sequence

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31172444]
  2. Guangdong Province Natural Science Foundation [20023002]
  3. Science and Technology Bureau of Guangdong Province
  4. Zhuhai City Science and Technology Program [PC20051058]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A virus with a particle diameter of approximately 30 nm and no envelope was purified from diseased mud crab, Scylla paramamosain and it was demonstrated to be pathogenic to mud crab. The complete nucleotide sequence analysis indicated that its genome was a single molecule of linear positive-sense ssRNA with a length of 10,415 nucleotides, excluding the 3'poly (A) tail. It consisted of two open reading frames (ORF) separated by an intergenic region (IGR) and flanked by a 5'untranslated region (5'-UTR) and a 3'untranslated region (3'-UTR). The 5'-ORF encode five putative non-structural proteins, including BIR (Baculovirus Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein Repeat), helicase, VPg (the genome-linked viral protein), 3C-like protease and RdRP (RNA-dependent RNA polymerase), while the 3'-ORF encode the structural protein precursors. This genome organization was consistent with the typical organization of dicistrovirus and the virus was designated as mud crab dicistrovirus-1 (MCDV-1). The results of the phylogenetic analysis of the putative structural protein precursor suggest that MCDV-1 has a closer genetic relationship with Taura syndrome virus (TSV) than do other dicistroviruses and that MCDV-1 is a new member of the family Dicistroviridae and assigned into the genus Aparavirus. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available