4.5 Article

Attenuated live vaccine usage affects accurate measures of virus diversity and mutation rates in avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 158, 期 1-2, 页码 225-234

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2011.04.006

关键词

Coronavirus; Infectious bronchitis virus; Molecular evolution; Mutation rate; Recombination; Comparative genomics; Sequencing; Polymorphism

类别

资金

  1. USDA, CSREES [2007-35600-17786]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The full-length genomes of 11 infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) field isolates from three different types of the virus; Massachusetts (Mass), Connecticut (Conn) and California (CAL) isolated over a 41,25 and 8 year period respectively, were sequenced and analyzed to determine the mutation rates and level of polymorphisms across the genome. Positive selection was not detected and mutation rates ranged from 10(-4) to 10(-6) substitutions/site/year for Mass and Conn IBV types where attenuated live vaccines are routinely used to control the disease. In contrast, for CAL type viruses, for which no vaccine exists, positive selection was detected and mutation rates were 10 fold higher ranging from 10(-2) to 10(-3) substitutions/site/year. Lower levels of genetic diversity among the Mass and Conn viruses as well as sequence similarities with vaccine virus genomes suggest that the origin of the Mass and all but one of the Conn viruses was likely vaccine virus that had been circulating in the field for an unknown but apparently short period of time. The genetic data also identified a recombinant IBV isolate with 7 breakpoints distributed across the entire genome suggesting that viruses within the same serotype can have a high degree of genetic variability outside of the spike gene. These data are important because inaccurate measures of genetic diversity and mutation rates could lead to underestimates of the ability of IBV to change and potentially emerge to cause disease. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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