4.7 Article

Metagenomics detection and characterisation of viruses in faecal samples from Australian wild birds

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26851-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship through Deakin University
  2. NHMRC Equipment Grant through Deakin University [GNT9000413]
  3. NHMRC CRE APPRISE through Deakin University [APP1116530]
  4. Deakin University
  5. Barwon Health
  6. CSIRO
  7. BirdLife Australia
  8. ARC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present an optimised metagenomics method for detection and characterisation of all virus types including single and double stranded DNA/RNA and enveloped and non-enveloped viruses. Initial evaluation included both spiked and non-spiked bird faecal samples as well as non-spiked human faecal samples. From the non-spiked bird samples (Australian Muscovy duck and Pacific black ducks) we detected 21 viruses, and we also present a summary of a few viruses detected in human faecal samples. We then present a detailed analysis of selected virus sequences in the avian samples that were somewhat similar to known viruses, and had good quality (Q20 or higher) and quantity of next-generation sequencing reads, and was of interest from a virological point of view, for example, avian coronavirus and avian paramyxovirus 6. Some of these viruses were closely related to known viruses while others were more distantly related with 70% or less identity to currently known/sequenced viruses. Besides detecting viruses, the technique also allowed the characterisation of host mitochondrial DNA present and thus identifying host species, while ribosomal RNA sequences provided insight into the ribosomal activity microbiome; of gut parasites; and of food eaten such as plants or insects, which we correlated to non-avian host associated 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