4.7 Article

Evolutionary relationships of iridoviruses and divergence of ascoviruses from invertebrate iridoviruses in the superfamily Megavirales

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 44-52

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.12.013

关键词

Ascoviridae; Iridoviridae; Marseilleviridaek; Evolution; Taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The family Iridoviridae of the superfamily Megavirales currently consists of five genera. Three of these, Lymphocystivirus, Megalocytivirus and Ranavirus, are composed of species that infect vertebrates, and the other two, Chloriridovirus and Iridovirus, contain species that infect invertebrates. Until recently, the lack of genomic sequence data limited investigation of the evolutionary relationships between the invertebrate iridoviruses (IIVs) and vertebrate iridoviruses (VIVs), as well as the relationship of these viruses to those of the closely related family Ascoviridae, which only contains species that infect insects. To help clarify the phylogenetic relationships of these viruses, we recently published the annotated genome sequences of five additional IIV isolates. Here, using classical approaches of phylogeny via maximum likelihood, a Bayesian approach, and resolution of a core protein tree, we demonstrate that the invertebrate and vertebrate IV species constitute two lineages that diverged early during the evolution of the family Iridoviridae, before the emergence of the four IIV clades, previously referred to as Chloriridoviruses, Polyiridoviruses, Oligoiridoviruses and Crustaceoiridoviruses. In addition, we provide evidence that species of the family Ascoviridae have a more recent origin than most iridoviruses, emerging just before the differentiation between the Oligoiridoviruses and Crustaceoiridovirus clades. Our results also suggest that after emergence, based on their molecular clock, the ascoviruses evolved more quickly than their closest iridovirus relatives. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据