4.4 Article

Formal recognition and classification of gene transfer agents as viriforms

Journal

VIRUS EVOLUTION
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ve/veac100

Keywords

GTA; polydnaviriformid; Brachyspira; Bartonella; Rhodobacterales; nomenclature

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [HHSN272201800013C]
  2. Laulima Government Solutions, LLC [HHSN272201800013C]
  3. Simons Foundation Investigator in Mathematical Modeling of Living Systems award [327936]
  4. Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) [RGPIN 2018-03898]
  5. NSERC [RGPIN-2017-04636]
  6. Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Graduate Studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

GTAs are entities that have evolved with cellular genomes and should not be considered viruses. Their lifecycles are analogous to viriforms found in parasitoid wasps.
Morphological and genetic features strongly suggest that gene transfer agents (GTAs) are caudoviricete-derived entities that have evolved in concert with cellular genomes to such a degree that they should not be considered viruses. Indeed, GTA particles resemble caudoviricete virions, but, in contrast to caudoviricetes (or any viruses), GTAs can encapsidate at best only part of their own genomes, are induced solely in small subpopulations of prokaryotic host cells, and are transmitted vertically as part of cellular genomes during replication and division. Therefore, the lifecycles of GTAs are analogous to virus-derived entities found in the parasitoid wasps, which have recently been recognized as non-virus entities and therefore reclassified as viriforms. We evaluated three distinct, independently exapted GTA groups, for which the genetic basis for GTA particle production has been established. Based on the evidence, we outline a classification scheme for these viriforms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available