4.4 Article

Potential APOBEC-mediated RNA editing of the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses and its impact on their longer term evolution

期刊

VIROLOGY
卷 556, 期 -, 页码 62-72

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.virol.2020.12.018

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; Coronavirus; Virus evolution; APOBEC; Innate immunity

类别

资金

  1. Wellcome Investigator Award [WT103767MA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Members of the APOBEC family exhibit antiviral activities in mammalian cells through lethal editing of the genomes of various viruses, including RNA viruses like coronaviruses. APOBEC-like C-*U transitions are significantly overrepresented in the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may leave evolutionary imprints on coronavirus genomes. This process may lead to homoplasy and amino acid sequence changes in viral proteins, potentially explaining global depletion of C and excess of U bases in human seasonal coronavirus genomes.
Members of the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases show antiviral activities in mammalian cells through lethal editing in the genomes of small DNA viruses, herpesviruses and retroviruses, and potentially those of RNA viruses such as coronaviruses. Consistent with the latter, APOBEC-like directional C-*U transitions of genomic plus-strand RNA are greatly overrepresented in SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences of variants emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic. A C-*U mutational process may leave evolutionary imprints on coronavirus genomes, including extensive homoplasy from editing and reversion at targeted sites and the occurrence of driven amino acid sequence changes in viral proteins. If sustained over longer periods, this process may account for the previously reported marked global depletion of C and excess of U bases in human seasonal coronavirus genomes. This review synthesizes the current knowledge on APOBEC evolution and function and the evidence of their role in APOBEC-mediated genome editing of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses.

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

4.4
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