4.4 Article

Intragenic recombination influences rotavirus diversity and evolution

期刊

VIRUS EVOLUTION
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ve/vez059

关键词

dsRNA; genetic diversity; Reoviridae; segmented genome; RDP4

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because of their replication mode and segmented dsRNA genome, homologous recombination is assumed to be rare in the rotaviruses. We analyzed 23,627 complete rotavirus genome sequences available in the NCBI Virus Variation database, and found 109 instances of homologous recombination, at least eleven of which prevailed across multiple sequenced isolates. In one case, recombination may have generated a novel rotavirus VP1 lineage. We also found strong evidence for intergenotypic recombination in which more than one sequence strongly supported the same event, particularly between different genotypes of segment 9, which encodes the glycoprotein, VP7. The recombined regions of many putative recombinants showed amino acid substitutions differentiating them from their major and minor parents. This finding suggests that these recombination events were not overly deleterious, since presumably these recombinants proliferated long enough to acquire adaptive mutations in their recombined regions. Protein structural predictions indicated that, despite the sometimes substantial amino acid replacements resulting from recombination, the overall protein structures remained relatively unaffected. Notably, recombination junctions appear to occur nonrandomly with hot spots corresponding to secondary RNA structures, a pattern seen consistently across segments. In total, we found strong evidence for recombination in nine of eleven rotavirus A segments. Only segments 7 (NSP3) and 11 (NSP5) did not show strong evidence of recombination. Collectively, the results of our computational analyses suggest that, contrary to the prevailing sentiment, recombination may be a significant driver of rotavirus evolution and may influence circulating strain diversity.

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