4.7 Review

Short-Sighted Virus Evolution and a Germline Hypothesis for Chronic Viral Infections

期刊

TRENDS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 336-348

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.03.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Royal Society [wtvm055984, 107653/Z/15/Z]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K009524/1]
  4. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)/ERC [614725-PATHPHYLODYN]
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K009524/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/K009524/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With extremely short generation times and high mutability, many viruses can rapidly evolve and adapt to changing environments. This ability is generally beneficial to viruses as it allows them to evade host immune responses, evolve new behaviours, and exploit ecological niches. However, natural selection typically generates adaptation in response to the immediate selection pressures that a virus experiences in its current host. Consequently, we argue that some viruses, particularly those characterised by long durations of infection and ongoing replication, may be susceptible to short-sighted evolution, whereby a virus' adaptation to its current host will be detrimental to its onward transmission within the host population. Here we outline the concept of short-sighted viral evolution and provide examples of how it may negatively impact viral transmission among hosts. We also propose that viruses that are vulnerable to short-sighted evolution may exhibit strategies that minimise its effects. We speculate on the various mechanisms by which this may be achieved, including viral life history strategies that result in low rates of within-host evolution, or the establishment of a 'germline' lineage of viruses that avoids short-sighted evolution. These concepts provide a new perspective on the way in which some viruses have been able to establish and maintain global pandemics.

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

4.7
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