Archive for the ‘biotechnology’ Category

Molecular evidence of Ebola Reston virus infection in Philippine bats

18 July, 2015

In 2008–09, evidence of Reston ebolavirus (RESTV) infection was found in domestic pigs and pig workers in the Philippines. With species of bats having been shown to be the cryptic reservoir of filoviruses elsewhere, the Philippine government, in conjunction with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, assembled a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional team to investigate Philippine bats as the possible reservoir of RESTV.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.virologyj.com

I recall at the time of its discovery, thinking that the virus must have reservoir species back home in the East – and that the fact that no disease had ever been reported from there in humans, meant it was completely under the radar.

There was also the issue that the virus seemed to have been transmitted between monkeys in the Reston facility without any direct contact – and even between rooms, which would imply airborne transmission.

Which frightened the cr@p out of many people, and I am sure especially those primate centre workers who were found to be seropositive for the virus, in the absence of any symptoms – even though at teh time, unsanitary conditions and overcrowding were blamed (http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/ebola/ebolair.html).

It is still something that needs to be looked at seriously: is Ebola Reston more transmissible than Zaire, Sudan and the rest – and if so, why?

Those interested can pick up on what happened at the time, here on the Ebola information pages I ran for a while:

http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/ebola/ebopage.htm

 

 

See on Scoop.itPlant Molecular Farming

Influenza virus: a short introduction

14 July, 2015

This is excerpted from the ebook “Influenza Virus. Introduction to a Killer”, which is available here for US$9.99 .

Influenza: the disease

Influenza: a disease and a virus

Influenza as a disease in humans has been known for centuries; however, its cause was only discovered in the early 20th century: this was the group of viruses now known as Influenza virus types A, B and C.

There are several influenza viruses circulating in humans at any one time; these cause “seasonal flu”, which is usually a mild disease because most people have some degree of immunity.

Influenza pandemics, however, are caused by novel viruses – which are generally derived from animals, and usually originate in birds.  Here, the disease can be much more severe.

Influenza viruses have caused some of the biggest and yet some of the most insidious disease outbreaks to have hit humankind: from 1918 to 1920, the “Spanish Flu” pandemic killed more than 60 million people across the world; subsequent pandemics in 1957, 1968 and 1977 killed millions more, and the count is still unclear on the 2009 pandemic. However, in any given year more than 400 000 people probably die of so-called “seasonal flu” – yet universal vaccination against it is still a dream.

What is Influenza?

What is Influenza?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA define influenza as

“…a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses that infect the nose, throat, and lungs. It can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death.”

The disease is transmitted mainly via droplets of respiratory secretions: these result from sneezing or coughing, which blows out a fine cloud of droplets or aerosol from the upper airways of infected people.  Breathing in or inhalation of these droplets – which can happen from 2 metres away – or transfer of droplets by hand from a contaminated surface to the mouth, is enough to cause infection. 

The virus initially infects cells of the upper airway, or the respiratory epithelium.  Spread to lower parts of the respiratory system, such as into the lung, depends upon the particular virus, and whether or not the individual is partially immune.

  • Fever or chills
  • Cough
  • Sore throat
  • Rhinitis, or runny nose
  • Muscle or body aches, headaches
  • Tiredness, “fuzzy head”
  • Vomiting and/or diarrhoea (more common in children than adults).

The average incubation period, or time from infection to disease, is about 48 hours.  Full recovery can take a month, although about two weeks is more common in seasonal flu.  People can pass on the virus before they show symptoms, and each infected person on average infects another 1.4 people.

While flu may be mild enough that it is hardly noticed, severe disease can also occur – especially in the elderly, the very young, heavy smokers, people who are chronically ill from other causes – and immunocompromised individuals.

While the virus can cause pneumonia directly due to damaging lung tissue, as happened in the “Spanish Flu” pandemic, severe illness with pneumonia is more usually due to secondary bacterial infections – which can be treated with antibiotics, unlike the viral pneumonia

Seasonal flu, or the disease caused by viruses circulating in the population, typically has an “attack rate” of between 5-15% of the population in annual epidemics.  Case fatality rates, or deaths among those infected, are usually between 0.1 – 0.3%. However,  pandemic flu – caused by new strains which arise spontaneously, and to which people are not immune – can attack from 25-50%, and kill 5% of those infected.  Seasonal flu also mainly infects children – because older people are often immune – but mainly causes severe disease and death in the elderly: up to 90% of victims are usually 65 or older

Conversely, pandemic strains may affect a different set of age groups: for example, the Spanish Flu affected mainly healthy young adults.

Seasonal influenza is typically a disease of the autumn and winter seasons in temperate zones – meaning October – March in the northern hemisphere, and April – August in the southern.  The CDC FluView graph shown here clearly illustrates the cyclical nature of seasonal flu, tracked in the USA over a 5 year period.  However, the exact timing is not reliable, and epidemics may peak as early as October in the north, or April in the south, or as late as the end of the season.

Tropical zones have a different epidemic profile:

here the virus may circulate year-round, typically with a peak during the one or two rainy seasons.  Because of demographic reasons incidence is severely under-reported: however, in a seasonal outbreak in Madagascar in 2002, there were more than 27 000 cases reported in 3 months, with over 800 deaths for a case-fatality rate of around 3%.  A WHO coordinated investigation of this outbreak found that there were severe health consequences in poorly nourished populations with limited access to adequate health care.

Why is influenza seasonal?

Many reasons have been invoked over the years to explain this, ranging from temperature, humidity, school schedules, increased indoor crowding during winter or rainy seasons, and even variations in host immunity due to lack of vitamin D or melatonin.  However, the same reasons cannot be given for both the increase in influenza incidence in temperate climates with the onset of winter, and the rainy season peaks in tropical regions, given the very different environmental conditions prevailing.

A recent study set out to systematically determine the interactions between relative humidity, and salt and mucus and protein content of droplets containing live flu virus, on the viability of the virus – and came up with conclusions that could explain the temperate / tropical transmission differences.

Essentially, their explanation for temperate region seasonality is that there is low relative humidity indoors in winter due to heating: this leads to increased survival of virus due to drying of particles – influenza A viruses are stabilised by being dried in the presence of salts, mucus and proteins – and leads to aerosols persisting longer in the interior environment due to smaller size, and being propagated further, meaning most transmission would be by this route.  Increased time spent indoors and increased indoor crowding due to the climate would obviously increase transmission rates under these conditions. 

Tropical environments present a very different picture: here, high temperatures would accelerate virion decay, which would tend to decrease any transmission.  However, in rainy seasons, temperatures drop and relative humidity increases to nearly 100% – conditions conducive to survival of large drops, which settle out quickly onto surfaces, where the virus remains viable.  Thus, transmission could be mainly by surface contact.  The same social factors apply as for temperate climates, with frequent rain leading to more time indoors and more crowding – and a greater opportunity for transmission.

Crystallising the tobacco mosaic virus

6 July, 2015

We saw last week how sulphur dioxide released from the Laki fissure system accounted for many deaths due to poisoning. We will stay with poisons this week as well, for virus has its roots in the Latin term for “poison”

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.thehindu.com

Nice article – and from a newspaper in India, no less!  Adds to the history of virology in a very accessible way.

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Superbug threat prompts West to revisit Soviet-era virus therapy

4 July, 2015

Alarmed by rising resistance to antibiotics scientists and governments are taking a fresh look at bacteria-chomping viruses first isolated a century ago from the stools of patients recovering from

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.reuters.com

So nearly 100 years after Felix d’Herelle started championing phage therapy, the West is finally taking notice?  I’t actually way past time that they were taken seriously: the Eliava Institute in Georgia has nearly that long a history (d’Herelle influenced the founder to start their enormous collection of phages) of successful treatment of bacterial infections, but westerners have stayed wedded to increasingly ineffective antibiotics for the last 70-something years.

I know what I might work on in my old age….

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Creating more effective vaccines against flu virus

4 July, 2015

Flu vaccines can be something of a shot in the dark. Not only must they be given yearly, there’s no guarantee the strains against which they protect will be the ones circulating once the season arrives. New research by Rockefeller University scientists and their colleagues suggests it may be possible to harness a previously unknown mechanism within the immune system to create more effective and efficient vaccines against this ever-mutating virus.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.news-medical.net

So: antibody-antigen complexes work better than antigen alone – and sialylation of the antibody is important.  Vaccinology really is entering the 21st century!

See on Scoop.itVirology News

eBook on “Influenza Virus: Introduction to a Killer”

17 June, 2015

For some five years now, I have been simultaneously writing two ebooks on viruses. The one – originally part of a longer effort not yet finished – is “A Short History of the Discovery of Viruses” which is also advertised on Virology News; the other is a labour of love on influenza.

Labour of love for me because I got more into it the more I read, and because Russell Kightley’s images were so amazing.

Both were written using Apple’s iBooks Author app; both are designed to be read by Apple’s iBooks app on iPad, iPhone or Mac.

So here it is:

Influenza Virus: Introduction to a Killer

Enjoy. Buy!

Influenza_1-6-15_sample_iba

 

The double life of a geminivirus: Bean yellow dwarf virus

29 May, 2015

Every now and then I solicit contributions for this site – but this one came without coercion, or even prompting!  I thank Romana for being so enthusiastic B-)

Romana Yanez

Biopharming Research Unit, UCT

All material copyright Romana Yanez and UCT

***

I want to tell the story of a geminivirus called Bean yellow dwarf virus that has two very distinct “lives”: one as a crop pest, infecting bean plants in South Africa and the other as a powerful molecular tool as a viral vector for recombinant protein expression in plants. As if each one of the “heads” of the twinned capsids had a life of its own. The dark side and the bright side. The yin and yang…

Introduction

Geminiviruses are small, single-stranded, circular DNA plant viruses, so called because each particle is composed of two partially assembled icosahedra joined to form a twinned capsid [1], [2]. They infect plants and are carried by insect vectors such as leafhoppers and whiteflies [2]. They are divided into seven genera: Mastrevirus, Bogomovirus, Topocuvirus, Curtovirus, Becurtovirus, Eragrovirus and Turncurtovirus; according to their genomic organization, the hosts they infect, the insect vectors by which they are transmitted and by genome-wide pairwise sequence identities [3].

Geminiviruses belonging to the genus Mastrevirus are all monopartite viruses with genome sizes between 2.5 and 3.0 kb. They have as vectors different species of leafhoppers. They infect mostly monocotyledonous plants: Maize streak virus (MSV) causes devastating crop losses in African countries, Wheat dwarf virus (WDV), but also infect dicotyledonous plants: Bean yellow dwarf virus (BeYDV), Tobacco yellow dwarf virus (TYDV) and Chickpea chlorosis virus (CpCV) [2], [4], [5].

In 1997 the production of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris cv. Bonus) was severely reduced  in South Africa, mainly in the Northern Province and Mpumalanga District [4]. Plants presented symptoms similar to a TYDV infection, which at the time was the only mastrevirus described to infect dicotyledonous plants. These symptoms included stunted growth, brittle and leathery leaves, and leaf curling. Investigating the aetiology of this disease were Liu and co-workers. They determined it was a geminiviral infection by identifying virus-like particles (VLPs) with the characteristic twinned morphology. They then sequenced DNA samples of the virus and found it to be most closely related to TYDV, both, in nucleotide sequence (65% identity) and in genomic organization. It was similar enough to be placed under the genus Mastrevirus but distinct enough to be considered a different virus. They Then called it Bean yellow dwarf virus – BeYDV [4].

In 2007 a mild strain of BeYDV (BeYDV-m) was described by Halley-Stott et al. also isolated from P. vulgaris (cv. Top Crop). It was phylogenetically similar to BeYDV having 97% nucleotide sequence identity, but presented sufficient phenotypic differences to be a different BeYDV strain. It contained 81 nucleotide differences compared to the BeYDV type, most of which (63 changes) were found in regions of the genome that directly influenced its replication. Thus, BeYDV-m produced typical symptoms that were less severe and temporally delayed when compared to BeYDV type. The authors also suggested that P. vulgaris is not the BeYDV natural host since it is a non-indigenous plant in South Africa. Furthermore, since both strains of BeYDV were isolated in the same region, it was also suggested that their natural host may show very mild or no symptoms upon infection [6]. Subsequently BeYDV-m was renamed as Chickpea chlorotic dwarf virus (CpCDV) [3]. [However, we like BeYDV, so we’re going to keep called it that – Ed]

Molecular Characteristics and Life Cycle of BeYDV

The genome of BeYDV (Figure 1) is 2,561 nucleotides long with an organization similar to that of other mastreviruses and that replicates by rolling circle mechanism [4], [7]. Its genome is bidirectional, consisting of virion-sense open reading frames (ORFs) V1 and V2, and complementary-sense ORFs C1, C2, C3 and C4. Of these, only C3 and C4 are non-functional and non-conserved between the mastreviruses; although they are also present in TYDV [4], [8]. Within the complementary sense ORFs C1 and C2 an intron is found which is also conserved in other mastreviruses. Virion sense and complementary sense ORFs are separated by a long intergenic region (LIR) and a small intergenic region (SIR) [4]. Liu and co-workers described the functions of each component of the BeYDV genome by mutational analysis.

Figure 1. Genomic organization of Bean yellow dwarf virus. CP, capsid protein. LIR, long intergenic region. MP, movement protein. Rep, replication associated protein. SIR, short intergenic region. [9]

Figure 1. Genomic organization of Bean yellow dwarf virus. CP, capsid protein. LIR, long intergenic region. MP, movement protein. Rep, replication associated protein. SIR, short intergenic region. [9]

The LIR contains a bidirectional promoter to which host factors can bind and a stem-loop structure within the origin of replication (ori) which is required for initiation of rolling circle replication. A binding site and nicking site for the replication associated protein (Rep) are also found in this region. The SIR in turn contains a primer binding region for initiation of complementary strand synthesis as well as transcription termination elements [8]. These are the only two cis-acting elements required for BeYDV replication [8], [10].

The V1 ORF encodes for the movement protein (MP) which is associated with plasmodesmata and is important for systemic spread of the virus. It was found to be a symptom inducer as transgenic plants expressing V1 developed wild type-like infection symptoms. The putative pathogen associated molecular pattern recognized by the host plant may be within the first 17 N-terminus amino acids as plants infected with a mutant  developed wild type-like symptoms as well [8]. 

The V2 ORF encodes for the capsid protein (CP) which is important for viral movement as well and therefore for systemic infection. Thus, intracellular movement or trafficking of the viral DNA may require encapsidation. This was suggested since V2 mutants did not infect plants systemically and also, a basic domain on the N-terminal of the CP was identified which putatively binds to DNA or is involved in nuclear localization [8], [11].

From the genome of BeYDV, the complementary sense ORFs C1 and C2 are the most interesting for me. These encode two regulatory proteins involved in the replication of the virus: Rep and RepA. Their expression is regulated by alternate splicing, where spliced C1 and C2 (C1C2) mRNA is translated into Rep and unspliced C1 mRNA is translated into RepA [8]. 

Rep is responsible for initiating rolling circle replication by nicking the stem-loop structure at the ori, and for releasing nascent virion sense single stranded DNA and later ligating it to form circular ssDNA molecules [8], [12]. Rep is the only protein required for BeYDV replication, but in the presence of RepA the replication is more efficient [8], [10], [11].

RepA is a multi-regulatory protein only found in mastreviruses [2]. Even though both Rep and RepA, have a retinoblastoma related protein (RBR)-binding motif, LeuXCysXGlu, in BeYDV only RepA is able to bind to RBR proteins [10]. In mammalian cells, the retinoblastoma protein is a tumor repressor that binds to and inactivates the transcription factor E2F. By binding to RBR proteins, RepA is thought to disrupt this interaction and force the plant cell cycle into the S-phase – where DNA is replicated just before cell division. RepA is thus acting like other viruses’ oncogenic proteins, such as the human papillomavirus E7 protein and the adenovirus E1A protein. Thus, keeping conditions favorable for enhanced viral replication and proliferation [10], [11]. This could be seen when Hefferon and Dugdale mutated the RBR binding-motif of Rep and RepA to LeuXCysXGln. Only the RepA mutant showed significantly decreased replication. While the Rep mutant showed wild type-like replication [11].

Having in mind what I just described, one can picture the life cycle of BeYDV as follows:

A leafhopper (which has not been identified yet) carrying the virus infects a host plant – this will be a dicotyledonous plant such as P. vulgaris, from which it was originally isolated. The virus releases its ssDNA genome into the cytoplasm. The ssDNA enters the nucleus where host’s replication machinery synthesizes the complementary strand from the primer located in the SIR region, generating a replicative double stranded circular DNA intermediate. At this point the dsDNA serves as template for gene expression, from which Rep and RepA are expressed. RepA transactivates virion-sense gene expression and interferes with plant cell’s life cycle to produce S-phase conditions. Rep nicks the stem-loop structure located at the ori and binds to the 5’ end of the nicked strand. The 3’ end acts as a primer for the synthesis of a new virion-sense strand displacing the previous virion-sense strand. When this new strand is complete, the ori is regenerated and Rep nicks it again. Subsequent release and recircularization of the nascent virion-sense strand is also mediated by Rep. The process continues on the new circular ssDNA molecules as well. Only later, when the amount of CP is high enough, ssDNA molecules are encapsidated. The CP and MP then mediate systemic spread of the viral genome [2], [8]–[12]. When another leafhopper visits the infected plant, the virus is transferred to other plants and all starts again (Figure 2).

gv fig 2

Figure 2. The life cycle of BeYDV. Black circle, BeYDV ssDNA with the stem-loop structure. Black and green circle, BeYDV dsDNA replicative intermediate. Orange spheres, plant host’s replication machinery. Yellow spheres, Rep protein. Black line, nascent ssDNA during rolling circle replication. Purple sphere, RepA. Green sphere, plant retinoblastoma-related protein. Red spheres, BeYDV movement protein. Geminal structures, BeYDV capsid proteins. Modified from [13], [14].

Liu et al. (1997) and Halley-Stott et al. (2007) showed that BeYDV is able to infect other dicotyledonous plants besides P. vulgaris, such as: Nicotiana tabacum, N. benthamiana, Datura stramonium and Arabidopsis thaliana [4], [6]. It has also been isolated from chickpeas in Pakistan [15]. It was noted by Liu and co-workers that the intron of BeYDV (and TYDV) is not as AU-rich as intron sequences present in dicotyledonous plants, which suggested that these viruses had evolved from monocotyledonous-infecting ancestors [8]. Other thing that suggests that BeYDV (and TYDV) evolved from monocotyledonous-infecting mastreviruses is that they encode for two variants of the Rep protein while other geminiviruses infecting dicotyledonous plants encode for only one Rep protein from a continuous ORF [11].

BeYDV as a Powerful Molecular Tool

I have talked about the relatively dark side of BeYDV as a crop pest and plant cell cycle manipulator. Now I would like to introduce you to the other face of this geminivirus.

The importance of recombinant proteins in pharmaceutical, medical and research fields makes them highly demanded, which in turn requires the use efficient production systems [16], [17]. Plants provide a cheaper, faster, more efficient and highly scalable platform for the production of proteins compared to other methods [18], [19]. Vectors based on DNA viruses can be used to express complex proteins without the limitations and complexity faced by RNA viruses such as the need to use more than one virus construct, size constraint imposed on the insert and genomic instability [2], [20]. BeYDV and other geminiviruses have small and simple DNA genomes which can be rapidly amplified to very high copy numbers using mainly host factors and that can be easily manipulated. These features make them attractive viruses for the design of plant vectors for the expression of recombinant proteins [21]. BeYDV has been extensively explored as a molecular tool for the expression of mainly pharmaceutically relevant proteins, such as vaccines, antibodies and enzymes [9], [21]. And recently it has also been used as a means to deliver reagents into plant cells to genetically engineer them [22].

Hefferon and co-workers were one of the first to design a vector derived from BeYDV. They expressed a synthetic version of Staphylococcus enterotoxin B (SEB) in tobacco NT-1 cells. The synthetic SEB sequence was placed under the control of a Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S constitutive promoter and flanked by the cis acting BeYDV LIR and SIR. The Rep encoding gene was provided in trans from a separate construct and also constitutively expressed from the CaMV 35S promoter. Constructs were co-delivered into NT-1 cells by bombardment [11]. They obtained expression levels of ≈0.025 mg SEB / kg of NT-1 cells. They showed that expression of SEB could be enhanced by 20 times by supplying Rep in trans compared to when no Rep was supplied. Overall they showed that BeYDV-based replicon systems promised enhancement of recombinant protein expression in plants [23].

In a more deconstructed approach, Mor et al. (2003) designed a replicon system similar to that of Hefferon and Dugdale (2003) in which the BeYDV MP and CP genes were replaced by the gene of interest (GUS), controlled by CaMV 35S promoter and flanked by the LIR and SIR sequences [24]. Since the CP can sequestrate viral ssDNA, preventing dsDNA to be formed [8], by removing the CP from the viral vector, expression levels can be increased. Removing non-essential features of the virus also gives more room for larger inserts and channels energy and building blocks that would be used to synthesize these proteins into expressing the recombinant protein [20]. Mor et al. obtained expression levels 40 times higher when supplying Rep as well as RepA than when no Rep/RepA was supplied. Showing that RepA also enhances expression levels, probably by making the cell environment more favorable for replication [24]. 

Regnard et al. (2010) designed a replicon vector, pRIC, based on the mild strain of BeYDV that contained the Rep/RepA coding regions in cis rather than in trans. This allowed the vector to autonomously replicate and thus generate high levels of gene copy number and in turn enhanced protein expression. They used N. benthamiana plants and Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated gene delivery. They obtained higher expression levels than previously described of three unrelated proteins: enhanced GFP, Human Papillomavirus type 16 major CP, L1, and a HIV-1 p24 antigen. Yields were higher when using the replicative vector than when compared to expression from a non-replicative A. tumefaciens expression vector: 550 mg ⁄ kg fresh leaf weight (FLW) vs. 337 mg L1 ⁄ kg FLW for L1 and 3.23 mg p24 ⁄ kg FLW vs. 0.95 mg p24 ⁄ kg FLW for p24. This study showed that autonomous replication of BeYDV-based vectors dramatically increases gene expression levels [25].

Huang et al. (2009) designed a three-component replicon system that consisted of a construct derived from a deconstructed version BeYDV similar to that described by Mor et al. (2003) containing the gene of interest expression cassette, a construct encoding for the Rep/RepA under CaMV 35S promoter control and a construct expressing the posttranscriptional gene silencing suppressor protein P19. They obtained 0.34 g of Norwalk virus CP (NVCP) / kg FLW and 0.8 g of hepatitis B core antigen (HBc) / kg FLW, which were able to form VLPs. In order to simplify the replicon system, they included the Rep/RepA sequences in cis. They obtained similar expression levels when using the simplified replicon, with or without P19 supplementation as when the three-component system was used [26].  Later they designed a single vector containing multiple replicon cassettes each flanked by a LIR and a SIR. The vector also contained the Rep/RepA sequences under LIR control. Co-delivering the single-vector replicon and a P19 expression vector, they expressed the light and heavy chain of an Ebola virus-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAB), 6D8. They obtained ≈0.5 g of 6D8 mAB / kg FLW which had been assembled correctly and could bind its antigen specifically. Expression levels were comparable to those obtained by Giritch et al. (2006) [27] using two vectors based on two non-competing RNA viruses. They speculated that using this single-vector multireplicon system, even four proteins could be expressed simultaneously using two vectors or placing expression cassettes in tandem  [28].

More recently, Moon et al. (2014) were able to express Brome mosaic virus (BMV) and Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) VLPs at 0.5 and 1.0 g / kg FLW respectively, using a BeYDV-derived single-vector replicon system. This vector included the P19 coding sequence, the gene of interest as well as the Rep/RepA coding sequences in the same backbone. In this way enhanced expression of VLPs that can be used as carriers for nano-platforms with applications in material sciences and medicine was possible with only one agroinfiltration [29].

Finally, Baltes et al. (2014) demonstrated that BeYDV-based replicon system can be also used for plant genome engineering. They were able to deliver various nucleases (TALENs and CRISP/Cas system) as well as repair templates into tobacco cells and to regenerate plantlets with the desired DNA changes within 6 weeks. This highlighted the potential of vectors derived from BeYDV and other geminiviruses to be applied in the engineering of plants for, for example,  improvement of crop characteristics, crop resistance or in fundamental biology studies [22].

In conclusion, BeYDV is a small, dicotyledonous plant-infecting mastrevirus with apparently unlimited possible molecular applications.

References

[1] W. Zhang, N. H. Olson, T. S. Baker, L. Faulkner, M. Agbandje-McKenna, M. I. Boulton, J. W. Davies, and R. McKenna, “Structure of the Maize streak virus geminate particle.,” Virology, vol. 279, pp. 471–477, 2001.

[2] E. P. Rybicki and D. P. Martin, “Virus-derived ssDNA vectors for the expression of foreign proteins in plants,” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 375, pp. 19–45, 2011.

[3] A. Varsani, J. Navas-Castillo, E. Moriones, C. Hernández-Zepeda, A. Idris, J. K. Brown, F. Murilo Zerbini, and D. P. Martin, “Establishment of three new genera in the family Geminiviridae: Becurtovirus, Eragrovirus and Turncurtovirus,” Archives of Virology, vol. 159, pp. 2193–2203, 2014.

[4] L. Liu, T. Van Tonder, G. Pietersen, J. W. Davies, and J. Stanley, “Molecular characterization of a subgroup I geminivirus from a legume in South Africa,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 78, pp. 2113–2117, 1997.

[5] J. Hadfield, J. E. Thomas, M. W. Schwinghamer, S. Kraberger, D. Stainton, A. Dayaram, J. N. Parry, D. Pande, D. P. Martin, and A. Varsani, “Molecular characterisation of dicot-infecting mastreviruses from Australia,” Virus Research, vol. 166, no. 1–2, pp. 13–22, 2012.

[6] R. P. Halley-Stott, F. Tanzer, D. P. Martin, and E. P. Rybicki, “The complete nucleotide sequence of a mild strain of Bean yellow dwarf virus,” Archives of Virology, vol. 152, pp. 1237–1240, 2007.

[7] K. E. Palmer and E. P. Rybicki, “The molecular biology of mastreviruses.,” Advances in virus research, vol. 50, pp. 183–234, 1998.

[8] L. Liu, J. W. Davies, and J. Stanley, “Mutational analysis of bean yellow dwarf virus, a geminivirus of the genus Mastrevirus that is adapted to dicotyledonous plants,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 79, pp. 2265–2274, 1998.

[9] Q. Chen, J. He, W. Phoolcharoen, and H. S. Mason, “Geminiviral vectors based on bean yellow dwarf virus for production of vaccine antigens and monoclonal antibodies in plants,” Human Vaccines, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 331–338, Mar. 2011.

[10] L. Liu, K. Saunders, C. arole L. Thomas, J. W. Davies, and J. Stanley, “Bean yellow dwarf virus RepA, but not rep, binds to maize retinoblastoma protein, and the virus tolerates mutations in the consensus binding motif.,” Virology, vol. 256, pp. 270–279, 1999.

[11] K. L. Hefferon and B. Dugdale, “Independent expression of Rep and RepA and their roles in regulating bean yellow dwarf virus replication,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 84, pp. 3465–3472, 2003.

[12] C. Gutierrez, “Geminivirus DNA replication,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 56. pp. 313–329, 1999.

[13] “Adult drawing grape leafhopper,” Koppert Biological Systems 9103. [Online]. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koppert/2400156751/. [Accessed: 09-Feb-2015].

[14] “Phaseolus vulgaris,” Belgium, Prelude – Royal Museum for Central Africa – Tervuren. [Online]. Available: http://www.africamuseum.be/collections/external/prelude/view_plant?pi=09910. [Accessed: 09-Feb-2015].

[15] N. Nahid, I. Amin, S. Mansoor, E. P. Rybicki, E. Van Der Walt, and R. W. Briddon, “Two dicot-infecting mastreviruses (family Geminiviridae) occur in Pakistan,” Archives of Virology, vol. 153, pp. 1441–1451, 2008.

[16] G. Pogue and S. Holzberg, “Transient Virus Expression Systems for Recombinant Protein Expression in Dicot-and Monocotyledonous Plants,” in Plant Science, N. K. Dhal and S. C. Sahu, Eds. InTech, 2012, pp. 191–216.

[17] F. Sainsbury, P.-O. Lavoie, M.-A. D’Aoust, L.-P. Vézina, and G. P. Lomonossoff, “Expression of multiple proteins using full-length and deleted versions of cowpea mosaic virus RNA-2.,” Plant biotechnology journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 82–92, Jan. 2008.

[18] E. P. Rybicki, “Plant-produced vaccines: promise and reality.,” Drug Discovery Today, vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 16–24, Jan. 2009.

[19] V. Yusibov, S. Rabindran, U. Commandeur, R. M. Twyman, and R. Fischer, “The potential of plant virus vectors for vaccine production.,” Drugs in R&D, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 203–17, Jan. 2006.

[20] Y. Gleba, S. Marillonnet, and V. Klimyuk, “Plant Virus Vectors: Gene Expression Systems,” Encyclopedia of Virology, vol. 4, pp. 229–237, Apr. 2008.

[21] K. L. Hefferon, “DNA Virus Vectors for Vaccine Production in Plants: Spotlight on Geminiviruses,” Vaccines, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 642–653, Aug. 2014.

[22] N. J. Baltes, J. Gil-Humanes, T. Cermak, P. a Atkins, and D. F. Voytas, “DNA replicons for plant genome engineering.,” The Plant cell, vol. 26, no. January, pp. 151–63, 2014.

[23] K. L. Hefferon and Y. Fan, “Expression of a vaccine protein in a plant cell line using a geminivirus-based replicon system,” Vaccine, vol. 23, pp. 404–410, 2004.

[24] T. S. Mor, Y.-S. Moon, K. E. Palmer, and H. S. Mason, “Geminivirus vectors for high-level expression of foreign proteins in plant cells.,” Biotechnology and bioengineering, vol. 81, pp. 430–437, 2003.

[25] G. L. Regnard, R. P. Halley-Stott, F. L. Tanzer, I. I. Hitzeroth, and E. P. Rybicki, “High level protein expression in plants through the use of a novel autonomously replicating geminivirus shuttle vector.,” Plant biotechnology journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 38–46, Jan. 2010.

[26] Z. Huang, Q. Chen, B. Hjelm, C. Arntzen, and H. Mason, “A DNA replicon system for rapid high-level production of virus-like particles in plants.,” Biotechnology and bioengineering, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 706–14, Jul. 2009.

[27] A. Giritch, S. Marillonnet, C. Engler, G. van Eldik, J. Botterman, V. Klimyuk, and Y. Gleba, “Rapid high-yield expression of full-size IgG antibodies in plants coinfected with noncompeting viral vectors.,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 40, pp. 14701–6, Oct. 2006.

[28] Z. Huang, W. Phoolcharoen, H. Lai, K. Piensook, G. Cardineau, L. Zeitlin, K. J. Whaley, C. J. Arntzen, H. S. Mason, and Q. Chen, “High-level rapid production of full-size monoclonal antibodies in plants by a single-vector DNA replicon system.,” Biotechnology and bioengineering, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 9–17, May 2010.

[29] K. Moon, J. Lee, S. Kang, M. Kim, H. S. Mason, J. Jeon, and H. Kim, “Overexpression and self-assembly of virus-like particles in Nicotiana benthamiana by a single-vector DNA replicon system.,” Applied microbiology and biotechnology, vol. 98, pp. 8281–90, 2014.

Tracing the bird flu outbreak in North American poultry flocks

14 May, 2015

(Reuters) – The United States is facing its worst outbreak on record of avian influenza as three deadly strains have hit North American poultry flocks since December, with the spread of infection picking

Source: www.reuters.com

Useful timeline!

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Versatile scanner / camera system for lab meetings

6 May, 2015

I don’t know about you, but if you have ten or so people round a table, and you’re all trying to look at a photo of a PA gel or western blot in a lab book, it can get a little frustrating.

So, if you’re like me, and don’t know how big a 54″ TV is when you order a screen for your meeting room / office…there is a very simple, and very elegant solution. Oh, and it helps to have bought an Apple TV unit so people can wirelessly do Powerpoint presentations.

So here it is:

Simple wireless lab book scanning device

Simple wireless lab book scanning device

Basically, a simple lab retort stand and clamp, holding an iPhone that is connected to the Apple TV via the wireless network – and instant blowup of anything you point it at.   It works even better with my iPad, except it’s harder to set up the stand, because the workshop has taken six months to NOT make me my custom iPad clamp modelled on my old Czech photographic enlarger – but we won’t go there B-)

It has not escaped our notice that we’ll be able to watch the Rugby World Cup in the meeting room…but we won’t speak of that either!

NOTE ADDED 11/11/2016:

Ulli Mutzeck finished my new stand. It’s beautiful B-)

img_7055

Viruses and Human Cancer: The Molecular Age

1 April, 2015

Hepatitis C virus

A suspicion that other viruses were involved in post-transfusion-(PTF) related hepatitis was first aired by Harvey J Alter and colleagues, after proof in 1972 that some PTF-related hepatitis cases had no HBV antigen associated with them.  By 1977 hepatitis A virus (HAV, infectious hepatitis) had been excluded as well, and the term “non-A, non-B” hepatitis (NANB) was coined.  By 1978, transmission studies using human serum injected into chimpanzees showed that

“Hepatitis was transmitted by serum derived from patients with chronic as well as acute hepatitis, strongly suggesting a chronic carrier state for the agent responsible for non-A, non-B hepatitis. Non-A, non-B hepatitis thus seems to be due to a transmissible agent which can persist and remain infectious for long periods”.

There was also evidence from Japan the same year that there might be a novel antigen – hepatitis C (HC) antigen – associated with NANB PTF hepatitis.  In 1979, it was suggested from ultrastructural studies in cells from infected chimpanzees that more than one NANB agent might exist; by 1980 Alter had concluded that that the NANB hepatitis agent(s) played a dominant role in the pathogenesis of PTF hepatitis. In 1987, in an interesting application of essentially the same technology used to characterise the first viruses, Alter’s group used polycarbonate membranes to filter the infectious agent, and showed it was  30-60 nm in diameter, and therefore highly unlikely to be a retrovirus, as had been suggested by some.

Also in 1987, Michael Houghton, Qui-Lim Choo, and George Kuo at Chiron Corporation collaborated with  DW Bradley at the CDC in using the much newer technology of constructing a random-primed cDNA clonal library from RNA extracted from human plasma in a lambda phage expression vector, and screening proteins expressed from the library against NANB hepatitis-infected patient serum.  They discovered one sequence that produced a protein fragment that bound antibodies, sequenced it, and used the sequence to “primer walk” through the entire genome by repeated cDNA generation, cloning and sequencing.  They published their finding in 1989 of

“…an RNA molecule present in NANBH infections that consists of at least 10,000 nucleotides and that is positive-stranded with respect to the encoded NANBH antigen. These data indicate that this clone is derived from the genome of the NANBH agent and are consistent with the agent being similar to the togaviridae or flaviviridae”.

The agent was unique among viruses characterised until then, as no virus particle had yet been seen, let alone isolated. Alter and his team meanwhile tested for the presence of the virus in NANB patient samples, and in 1989 also published a paper – back-to-back with the previous – on

“An assay for circulating antibodies to a major etiologic virus of human non-A, non-B hepatitis”.

The sequence of the putative agent allowed cloning and expression of a putative capsid protein in yeast, which allowed large-scale screening of patient samples and donated blood.  From their paper:

“These data indicate that HCV is a major cause of NANBH throughout the world”.

There was also already evidence that NANBH was associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Japan: M Sakamoto and colleagues showed that 90% of HBsAg-seronegative patients, who were also overwhelmingly HBV DNA-negative, showed evidence of chronic hepatitis in the non-cancerous liver, and 29% had a history of blood transfusion. This was followed as early as 1989 by evidence that 65% Italian HCC patients had antibodies to HCV, and again the same year by evidence from Spain that 75% of HCC patients had HCV antibodies, which

“…indicate[s] that HCV infection may have a role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma, even in patients with chronic liver disease apparently related to other agents such as alcohol”.

By 1990, K Kiyosawa and colleagues felt able to state that:

“These data suggest the slow, sequential progression from acute hepatitis C virus-related non-A, non-B hepatitis through chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma and support a causal association between hepatitis C virus and hepatocellular carcinoma”.

These findings rapidly led to the revelations that hepatitis C virus (HCV) was implicated in both an acute and relatively mild illness that lasts only a few weeks, and a chronic form that is usually more serious and can last lifelong.  Between 15–45% of infected persons spontaneously clear the virus within 6 months; however, the remaining 55–85% will develop chronic HCV infection.

Up to 150 million people globally are chronically infected with HCV.  Moreover – also from the WHO site – a significant number of these people will develop liver cirrhosis or liver cancer, and up to 500 000 people die worldwide every year from HCV-related liver disease.

There is as yet no vaccine against HCV infection, although trials are quite far advanced – and one candidate combination prime-boost strategy from Eleanor Barnes and coworkers seemed to show promise as of the end of 2014.  This consisted of

“…a replicative defective simian adenoviral vector (ChAd3) and modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) vector encoding the NS3, NS4, NS5A, and NS5B proteins of HCV genotype 1b” – which is using two well-characterised viruses as gene vectors to combat a third.

The authors make the point that the responses they achieved in human volunteers are similar to those seen in people who control natural infections.

Meanwhile, chemotherapy for chronic infections is both a realistic and well-established area: there are a number of treatments on the market already, and there have been significant recent developments which may make treatment even more effective.

HCV particles were finally characterised from cell culture-grown virus: both enveloped and non-enveloped pleomorphic spherical particles were found, of around 60 nm and 45 nm in diameter respectively.  This agrees well with the estimation by filtration of 30-60 nm previously determined in 1987.  The virus is classified as a ss(+)RNA genome flavivirus, similar to yellow fever virus, in the genus Hepacivirus, family Flaviviridae

Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus

Moritz Kaposi in 1872 described what was originally called an “idiopathic multiple pigmented sarcoma of the skin”, which present as

“…disseminated blood- or bruise-coloured skin lesions (flat plaques or nodules) in the skin, usually on the lower extremities though sometimes on the hands and arms”.

What was subsequently called Kaposi Sarcoma, or KS, was at first thought to occur only among elderly men of Jewish, Arabic or Mediterranean origin; however by the 1950s it was realised it was quite common in sub-Saharan Africa, which led to the first suggestions that it might be caused by a virus.

In 1981-1982, however, the CDC received reports of KS occurring in otherwise healthy young homosexual men in California – often together with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was also previously very rare.  The disease was also much more aggressive, and spread beyond the skin into other tissues including bone, the mouth, gastrointestinal tract and lungs.

While there was at this time still no clue as to why this should be, the link to sexual acts as well as the previous observation that KS occasionally appeared in immune-suppressed organ transplant patients, led epidemiologists to discover the sexual transmission of immunodeficiency that led to the discovery of HIV and its causation of AIDS.

Valerie Beral and colleagues working at the CDC in the late 1980s used epidemiological data on KS in AIDS patients to build a compelling case for the tumour being caused by another sexually transmitted virus.  In a landmark paper in The Lancet, they announced in 1990, on the basis of painstaking and traditional-style investigation of 8 years’ worth of information from more than 90 000 people with AIDS collected in the US by the CDC since 1981, that:

“In the United States Kaposi’s sarcoma is at least 20000 times more common in persons with [AIDS] than in the general population and 300 times more common than in other immunosuppressed groups…Kaposi’s sarcoma was commoner among those who had acquired the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by sexual contact than parenterally, the percentage with Kaposi’s sarcoma ranging from 1% in men with haemophilia to 21% in homosexual or bisexual men. Women were more likely to have Kaposi’s sarcoma if their partners were bisexual men rather than intravenous drug users”.

The UK Cancer Research site on KS has an excellent account of the study as well as of its impact – one aspect of which was the proof in 1994 that indeed a virus was involved, using modern.  This was published by Y Chang and colleagues in Science, and detailed the use of the very modern technique of:

“Representational difference analysis … to isolate unique sequences present in more than 90 percent of Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) tissues obtained from patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). These sequences were not present in tissue DNA from non-AIDS patients, but were present in 15 percent of non-KS tissue DNA samples from AIDS patients. The sequences are homologous to, but distinct from, capsid and tegument protein genes of the Gammaherpesvirinae, herpesvirus saimiri and Epstein-Barr virus. These KS-associated herpesvirus-like (KSHV) sequences appear to define a new human herpesvirus.”

This became human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), the newest of the seven viruses known to cause human cancers.

Adeno-associated virus

A report in Nature Genetics in August 2015 implicates adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) in causation of human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) – specifically by means of insertional mutagenesis, in “cancer driver” genes.  Clonal integrations – with the same genome at the same site(s) – were found in 11 of 193 HCCs sampled, and the authors noted multiple insertions in some tumours, with significant effects on gene expression.

It is especially interesting that tumours with integrated viral genomes were found in non-cirrhotic liver (9 of 11 cases) and tumours in patients without known risk factors (6 of 11 cases).  The authors suggest a clear pathogenic role for AAV2 in these cases, and conclude that “AAV2 is a DNA virus associated with oncogenic insertional mutagenesis in human HCC”.

Back to Contents