4.6 Article

The analysis of genome composition and codon bias reveals distinctive patterns between avian and mammalian circoviruses which suggest a potential recombinant origin for Porcine circovirus 3

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199950

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Members of the genus Circovirus are host-specific viruses, which are totally dependent on cell machinery for their replication. Consequently, certain mimicry of the host genome features is expected to maximize cellular replicative system exploitation and minimize the recognition by the innate immune system. In the present study, the analysis of several genome composition and codon bias parameters of circoviruses infecting avian and mammalian species demonstrated the presence of quite distinctive patterns between the two groups. Remarkably, a higher deviation from the expected values based only on mutational patterns was observed for mammalian circoviruses both at dinucleotide and codon levels. Accordingly, a stronger selective pressure was estimated to shape the genome of mammalian circoviruses, particularly in the Cap encoding gene, compared to avian circoviruses. These differences could be attributed to different physiological and immunological features of the two host classes and suggest a trade-off between a tendency to optimize the capsid protein translation while minimizing the recognition of the genome and the transcript molecules. Interestingly, the recently identified Porcine circovirus 3(PCV-3) had an intermediate pattern in terms of genome composition and codon bias. Particularly, its Rep gene appeared closely related to other mammalian circoviruses (especially bat circoviruses) while the Cap gene more closely resembled avian circoviruses. These evidences, coupled with the high selective forces apparently modelling the PCV-3 Cap gene composition, suggest the potential recombinant origin, followed or preceded by a host jump, of this virus.

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