4.6 Article

Evolutionary Dynamics of a Highly Pathogenic Type 2 Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus: Analyses of Envelope Protein-Coding Genes

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 411-420

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.12154

关键词

highly pathogenic type 2 PRRSV; evolutionary dynamics; envelope protein-coding genes

资金

  1. BioGreen 21 Program, Republic of Korea [PJ009015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) has long been an economically devastating swine viral disease. The recent emergence of a highly pathogenic type 2 PRRSV with high mobility and mortality in China, spreading in Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand has placed neighbouring countries at risk. This study applied a codon-based extension of the Bayesian relaxed clock model and the fixed effects maximum-likelihood method to investigate and compare the evolutionary dynamics of type 2 PRRSV for all of known structural envelope protein-coding genes. By comparing the highly pathogenic type 2 PRRSV clade against the typical type 2 PRRSV clade, this study demonstrated that the highly pathogenic clade evolved at high rates in all of the known structural genes but did not display rapid evolutionary dynamics compared with typical type 2 PRRSV. In contrast, the ORF3, ORF5 and ORF6 genes of the highly pathogenic clade evolved in a qualitatively different manner from the genes of the typical clade. At the population level, several codons of the sequence elements that were involved in viral neutralization, as well as codons that were associated with in vitro attenuation/over-attenuation, were predicted to be selected differentially between the typical clade and the highly pathogenic clade. The results of this study suggest that the multigenic factors of the envelope protein-coding genes contribute to diversifying the biological properties (virulence, antigenicity, etc.) of the highly pathogenic clade compared with the typical clade of type 2 PRRSV.

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