4.3 Article

Bayesian estimates of the evolutionary rate and age of hepatitis B virus

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 197-205

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-007-0054-1

关键词

hepatitis B virus; relaxed molecular clock; phylogeny recombination; most recent common ancestor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurately estimating the evolutionary rate and age of hepatitis B virus (HBV) has proven to be one of the most difficult problems in studies of viral evolution. To help resolve these issues we employed a recently developed Bayesian coalescent approach to globally sampled human and avian hepadnavirus genome sequences, accounting for lineage-specific rate variation, the presence of overlapping reading frames, and the potential impact of recombination. Our analysis revealed an unexpectedly high rate of evolutionary change-up to 10(-4) nucleotide substitutions (subs) per site per year and always more than similar to 10(-6) subs/site/year. These rates suggested a time to the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of the sampled isolates of consistently less than similar to 1500 years ago for human HBV and less than 6000 years ago for the avian hepadnaviruses. Notably, the evolutionary rate of nonoverlapping regions of the viral genome was similar to 2-fold greater than that of overlapping genome regions, reflecting the complex patterns of selective constraint inherent in the former. We also reveal that most recombination events in both human and avian HBV tend to fall in a specific region of the viral genome, which contains all four viral open reading frames and which may therefore represent a hot spot for recombination. However, while recombination affects estimates of both evolutionary rate and tMRCA, in no case was this sufficient to challenge the hypothesis that the dominant mode of HBV evolution is by recent cross-species transmission. We conclude that HBV exhibits rapid evolutionary dynamics, typical of other viruses dependent on reverse transcriptase-mediated replication.

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

4.3
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