4.1 Article

Genome of a husavirus from Southern Brazil

出版社

INST MEDICINA TROPICAL SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202365005

关键词

Picornavirales; HuV; Stool samples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New viruses of the Picornavirales order, including the human stool-associated RNA virus (husavirus [HuV]), have been discovered through high-throughput sequencing. However, there is still much unknown about HuV, such as its cellular host and evolutionary history. In this study, a HuV genome with 8,846 bp was identified for the first time in Southern Brazil, showing significant differences from Brazilian strains but high similarity with genomes from China, Vietnam, Venezuela, and the Netherlands. Further research and sequencing are necessary to improve our understanding of HuV and its unknown origin within the Picornavirales order.
New viruses of the Picornavirales order have been discovered with the increase in the number of sequences obtained by high-throughput sequencing, as well as human stool-associated RNA virus (husavirus [HuV]), found in human stool samples. However, there is much to be clarified about HuV. Its cellular host, evolutionary history, and other biological characteristics are still unknown. Therefore, samples collected from human beings and environmental samples in a watershed in Southern Brazil were processed for the metagenomic library. Upon metagenomic analysis, we identified a HuV (husavirus LMM_67754 OP019707) genome with 8,846 bp, which was reported for the first time in Southern Brazil. The new genome presents only 37% of nucleotide identity with Brazilian strains and more than 90% with genomes from China, Vietnam, Venezuela, and the Netherlands. The HuV phylogeny presents significant differences among genomes, probably because multiple introductions of the virus may have occurred. Many questions still need to be answered about HuV. Therefore, more sequences and studies on this virus are necessary to improve the comprehension of the unknown origin of Picornavirales.

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

4.1
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