4.7 Article

Suppressors of RNAi from plant viruses are subject to episodic positive selection

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0965

关键词

molecular evolution; positive selection; evolutionary arms race; RNA interference; viral suppressor of RNAi; RNA silencing suppressors

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust RCD fellowship [085064/Z/08/Z]
  2. Masters Training Grant from the Natural Environment Research Council (UK)
  3. National Institutes of Health, UCSD Center for AIDS Research [R56 AI47745, R01 GM093939, P30 AI036214]
  4. Medical Research Council [1233629] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Viral suppressors of RNAi (VSRs) are proteins that actively inhibit the antiviral RNA interference (RNAi) immune response, providing an immune evasion route for viruses. It has been hypothesized that VSRs are engaged in a molecular 'arms race' with RNAi pathway genes. Two lines of evidence support this. First, VSRs from plant viruses display high sequence diversity, and are frequently gained and lost over evolutionary time scales. Second, Drosophila antiviral RNAi genes show high rates of adaptive evolution. Here, we investigate whether VSRs diversify faster than other genes and, if so, whether this is a result of positive selection, as might be expected in an arms race. By analysis of 12 plant RNA viruses, we show that the relative rate of protein evolution is higher for VSRs than for other genes, but that this is not attributable to pervasive positive selection. We argue that, because evolutionary time scales are extremely different for viruses and eukaryotes, it is improbable that viral adaptation (as measured by the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous change) will be dominated by one-to-one coevolution with eukaryotes. Instead, for plant virus VSRs, we find strong evidence of episodic selection-diversifying selection that acts on a subset of lineages-which might be attributable to frequent shifts between different host genotypes or species.

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