4.6 Article

Hidden diversity of double-stranded DNA phages in symbiotic Rhizobium species

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0468

关键词

phages; prophages; Rhizobium; evolution; taxonomy; protein networks

类别

资金

  1. Support Program for Research and Technological Innovation Projects at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (PAPIIT-UNAM) [IN209817]
  2. Directorate General for Academic Personnel Affairs at UNAM (DGAPA-UNAM)
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-1457508, IOS-1759048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the diversity of phages associated with nitrogen-fixing symbiotic Rhizobium species and identifies viral clusters that may represent distinct taxonomic units.
In this study, we addressed the extent of diversification of phages associated with nitrogen-fixing symbiotic Rhizobium species. Despite the ecological and economic importance of the Rhizobium genus, little is known about the diversity of the associated phages. A thorough assessment of viral diversity requires investigating both lytic phages and prophages harboured in diverse Rhizobium genomes. Protein-sharing networks identified 56 viral clusters (VCs) among a set of 425 isolated phages and predicted prophages. The VCs formed by phages had more proteins in common and a higher degree of synteny, and they group together in clades in the associated phylogenetic tree. By contrast, the VCs of prophages showed significant genetic variation and gene loss, with selective pressure on the remaining genes. Some VCs were found in various Rhizobium species and geographical locations, suggesting that they have wide host ranges. Our results indicate that the VCs represent distinct taxonomic units, probably representing taxa equivalent to genera or even species. The finding of previously undescribed phage taxa indicates the need for further exploration of the diversity of phages associated with Rhizobium species. This article is part of the theme issue 'The secret lives of microbial mobile genetic elements'.

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

4.6
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