4.2 Article

Complete genome sequences of infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus isolated from farmed albino rainbow sharks Epalzeorhynchos frenatum in the United States

期刊

VIRUS GENES
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 448-452

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11262-021-01857-6

关键词

Iridovirus; Megalocytivirus; Infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus; Complete genome sequence; Rainbow shark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reports the complete genome sequences of two megalocytiviruses isolated from diseased albino rainbow sharks reared on farms in the United States in 2018 and 2019, confirming the presence of ISKNV in albino rainbow sharks for the first time. Phylogenomic analyses revealed that both EFIV isolates belong to the ISKNV genotype within the genus Megalocytivirus.
The genus Megalocytivirus includes viruses known to cause significant disease in aquacultured fish stocks. Herein, we report the complete genome sequences of two megalocytiviruses (MCVs) isolated from diseased albino rainbow sharks Epalzeorhynchos frenatum reared on farms in the United States in 2018 and 2019. Histopathological examination revealed typical megalocytivirus microscopic lesions (i.e., basophilic cytoplasmic inclusions) that were most commonly observed in the spleen and kidney. Transmission electron microscopic examination of spleen and kidney tissues from specimens of the 2018 case revealed hexagonally shaped virus particles with a mean diameter of 153 +/- 6 nm (n = 20) from opposite vertices and 131 +/- 5 nm (n = 20) from opposite faces. Two MCV-specific conventional PCR assays confirmed the presence of MCV DNA in the collected samples. Full genome sequencing of both 2018 and 2019 Epalzeorhynchos frenatus iridoviruses (EFIV) was accomplished using a next-generation sequencing approach. Phylogenomic analyses revealed that both EFIV isolates belong to the infectious spleen and kidney necrosis virus (ISKNV) genotype within the genus Megalocytivirus. This study is the first report of ISKNV in albino rainbow sharks.

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

4.2
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