4.7 Article

Distinct codon usage bias evolutionary patterns between weakly and strongly virulent respiratory viruses

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103682

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32000401]
  2. Na-tional Natural Science Foundation of China [32122022, 31871320, 81830103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human respiratory viruses have different levels of virulence and their evolutionary patterns are influenced by the codon usage bias (CUB) in their structural and nonstructural genes. There is an interaction between CUB and virulence in respiratory viruses, with weakly virulent viruses showing greater CUB similarity to humans in nonstructural genes and strongly virulent viruses showing greater CUB similarity in structural genes.
Human respiratory viruses are of vastly different virulence, giving rise to symptoms ranging from common cold to severe pneumonia or even death. Although this most likely impacts molecular evolution of the corresponding viruses, the specific differences in their evolutionary patterns remain largely unknown. By comparing structural and nonstructural genes within respiratory viruses, greater similarities in codon usage bias (CUB) between nonstructural genes and humans were observed in weakly virulent viruses, whereas in strongly virulent viruses, it was structural genes whose CUBs were more similar to that of humans. Further comparisons between genomes of weakly and strongly virulent coronaviruses revealed greater similarities in CUBs between strongly virulent viruses and humans. Finally, using phylogenetic independent contrasts, dissimilation of viral CUB from that of humans was observed in SARS-CoV-2. Our work revealed distinct CUB evolutionary patterns between weakly and strongly virulent viruses, a previously unrecognized interaction between CUB and virulence in respiratory viruses

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available