PIPO, I see you…

30 May, 2008

Now here’s an interesting thing: a completely unsuspected gene – as in, on open reading frame (ORF) that actually DOES something – in one of the best-studied familes of plant viruses.  From the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA)’s CropBiotech Update 30 May 2008:

Scientists Discover Hidden Gene in Major Plant Virus Family

The virus family Potyviridae includes more than 30 percent of known plant virus species, most of which are of great agricultural significance such as the potato virus Y, turnip mosaic virus and wheat streak mosaic virus. Scientists from the Iowa State University, working with colleagues from the University College Cork in Ireland, have discovered a tiny gene present in all members of this virus family. Without this gene, the viruses are harmless.

Using a gene-finding software, the team identified a stretch of nucleotide bases that overlaps with a much larger and well characterized gene in potyviruses. They called the new gene pipo (short for pretty interesting potyvirus ORF). Alterations in the sequence of the pipo gene, while leaving the polyprotein amino acid sequence unaltered, were found to be lethal for the viruses.

The team led by Allen Miller and John Atkins are now working to determine the function of gene during infection as well as how the pipo protein is expressed from the viral genome. For this, the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative (USDA-NRI) has awarded them with a $400,000 competitive grant.

For more information, visit \http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/ Read the paper published by PNAS at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/105/15/5897

Nice one, guys…$400 000 should buy a few more ORFs…B-)  Seriously, though, the dogma has been for years that potyviruses, like picornaviruses, have a single long (~10kb) ORF, which expresses a polypeptide from the genomic RNA which is cotranslationally processed into a number of different proteins – and that was all there was.  This discovery is like finding a new and secret drawer in an old and familiar chest of drawers, or an extra pocket in your trousers.  Or, as I did recently, that there wer two interior lights in my car which I had not known of for six years…but I digress.

In the words of the authors:

“We report the discovery of a short ORF embedded within the P3 cistron of the polyprotein but translated in the +2 reading-frame. The ORF, termed pipo, is conserved and has a strong bioinformatic coding signature throughout the large and diverse Potyviridae family. Mutations that knock out expression of the PIPO protein in Turnip mosaic potyvirus but leave the polyprotein amino acid sequence unaltered are lethal to the virus. Immunoblotting with antisera raised against two nonoverlapping 14-aa antigens, derived from the PIPO amino acid sequence, reveals the expression of an ~25-kDa PIPO fusion product in planta. This is consistent with expression of PIPO as a P3-PIPO fusion product via ribosomal frameshifting or transcriptional slippage at a highly conserved G1-2A6-7 motif at the 5′ end of pipo. This discovery suggests that other short overlapping genes may remain hidden even in well studied virus genomes (as well as cellular organisms)…”

They go on to tout the virtues of the “software package MLOGD”, which it turns out is from here (Firth AE, Brown CM (2006) Detecting overlapping coding sequences in virus genomes. BMC Bioinformatics 7:75), and is the Maximum Likelihood Overlapping Gene Detector.   They say:

“Tests show that, from an alignment with just 20 mutations, MLOGD can discriminate non-overlapping CDSs from non-coding ORFs with a typical accuracy of up to 98%, and can detect CDSs overlapping known CDSs with a typical accuracy of 90%. In addition, the software produces a variety of statistics and graphics, useful for analysing an input multiple sequence alignment.”

And yes, it does make nice pictures: see this and this for examples.

All of which simply goes to reinforce my conviction that virus genomes may be generally quite small, but small does not necessarily mean simple.  Small means having to compress information, reuse sequences – and overlap ORFs in unsuspected ways.

Bird Flu Vaccine Launched – But For Whom?

22 May, 2008

The online 20 May issue of Nature News trumpets the release and marketing of a new H5N1 bird flu vaccine: GlaxoSmithKline’s Prepandrix has just been approved by the European Commission. 

Published online 20 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.844

Bird flu vaccine to hit the shelves

Europe approves pandemic vaccine; countries must decide own strategies.

Tony Scully

The European Commission has approved a new vaccine against the H5N1 bird flu virus — the first vaccine designed to ward off a future pandemic. But how the drug, called Prepandrix, will be deployed by national governments remains unclear.The vaccine, produced by the UK drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, is aimed at the H5N1 strain currently circulating in birds as epidemiologists think that this is the most likely strain to cause a human pandemic. H5N1, which originated in south-east Asia and is carried by migrating birds and domestic poultry, has caused 382 human cases and 241 deaths worldwide since 2003.

Prepandrix targets an antigen from an H5N1 strain called A/Vietnam/1194/04, which has been detected in birds in Asia, Europe and Africa. Clinical tests have shown that the vaccine is also effective against other closely related variants of H5N1, such as H5N2. The release of the vaccine is seen as a gamble that any future pandemic strain will closely resemble the Vietnamese version used to derive the vaccine.

The article goes on to describe how “The first orders for Prepandrix were placed last year by Finland and Switzerland, before it had been approved by the European Commission. In 2007, sales for Prepandrix totalled US$284 million worldwide….”

Yes.  Well.  Um.  Where is the pandemic going to hit first?  Finland?  Switzerland?  I doubt it.  How about Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Turkey, Egypt…or, horror of horrors, India or China?  All the places which will need a LOT of doses, cheap.

Do they stand any chance of getting them?  Not unless they have preordered.  And not – in the case a pandemic strikes – unless they are willing to take military action to prise their stocks out of the hands of the governments in the developed countries where the vaccines are made.

A senior WHO official stated the case very succinctly, at the Virus Africa virology conference in Cape Town in November 2005: “You people in the developing countries will be on your own if the pandemic comes.  You need to make your own vaccine…”.

We wait in hope.

Painting With Viruses

21 May, 2008

Suhail Rafudeen should be a virologist…B-)  Here’s another piece of treasure from his Web trawling:

Public release date: 20-May-2008

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Scientists ‘paint’ viruses to track their fate in the body New study in the FASEB Journal describes a molecular ‘painting’ method to colors the culprit

Bethesda, MD-Biologists from Austria and Singapore developed a technique that adds a new twist on the relationship between biology and art. In an article recently published online in The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) and scheduled for the August 2008 print issue, these researchers describe how they were able to coat-or paint-viruses with proteins. This breakthrough should give a much-needed boost to the efficiency of some forms of gene therapy, help track and treat viral disease and evolution, improve the efficiency of vaccines, and ultimately allow health care professionals track the movement of viral infections within the body. Specifically, the new method should make it easier to track and treat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, influenza, hepatitis C, and dengue fever. And because viruses can also be used to introduce biotechnology drugs and replacement genes, and act as vaccines, this research should lead to new treatments for cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic and inherited disorders.

“This technology should provide a new tool for the treatment of many diseases,” said Brian Salmons, one of scientists who co-authored the study. “Even if you are working with a virus that is unknown or poorly characterized, it is still possible to modify or paint it. This is very interesting for emerging diseases.”

In the article, Salmons and colleagues explain how they mixed purified proteins (glycosylphophatidylinositol anchor proteins) with lipid membranes to make it possible to bind these proteins to the outer “skin” (the lipid envelope) of viruses. Even with the new paint job, the viruses remained infectious. While the experiment only involved one type of protein and two types of viral vectors, Salmons says the technique could be expanded and used to apply “paint” made up of other proteins, dyes, and a variety of unique markers.

“Biology and art converge daily: people paint their nails, color their hair, and tattoo their skin,” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “Now this convergence has entered a new dimension as painted viruses permit scientists to track, cure and prevent disease.”

I think Dr Weissman may have an exciting life outside of science…B-)  But seriously, this is a VERY useful development: keeping viruses infectious while being able to track them, even in real time, and show where different viruses infecting the same cells end up…the possibilities expand as you think of them.

Truly little nanomachines, viruses: and now you can specify the colour.

What Rough Beast

19 May, 2008

I was surprised and rather gratified to see – via a suitably modest no-commentary post in MicrobiologyBytes – that ViroBlogy has been noticed by none other than the June editorial of Nature Reviews Microbiology.

Along with rather more material on MicrobiologyBytes and Small Things Considered.  But hey, a review’s a review…!

There are a number of useful comments and other links in the blog version of the post, on how to actually interact with such material, and the potential of “Web 2.0” applications.

So get busy, students…the wiki is coming – in fact, it was already established, but will be re-invented before the second semester – and your participation is vital.

Influenza vaccines from plants??

22 April, 2008

I should have known Alan Cann would find this one; it’s just too good to miss – so I am going to add to what he said, as a way of further exploring what they could/should have done, as a result of discussions in our Journal Club this morning.

Alan wrote:

Influenza vaccines from plants

Posted by ajcann on April 16, 2008

 Our major defense against infection with influenza viruses is immunization of individuals with an annually updated vaccine that is currently produced in chicken eggs, with a global annual capacity of about 400 million doses, a scale of production insufficient to combat a pandemic. Furthermore, at least six months is required between the identification of new virus strains to be included in the vaccine formulation and the manufacture of bulk quantities. Uncertainties over the robustness of egg-based vaccine production are intensified even further by the emergence of H5N1 strains that are highly virulent to both chickens and eggs. There is a need to develop alternative vaccine production systems capable of rapid turnaround and high capacity. Recombinant subunit vaccines should circumvent some of the concerns regarding our current dependence on egg-based production.This paper reports on the production and evaluation of domains of influenza haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) fused to the thermostable enzyme lichenase. All vaccine targets were produced using a plant-based transient expression system (Nicotiana). When tested in ferrets, vaccine candidates containing these engineered plant-produced influenza HA and NA antigens were highly immunogenic, and were protective against infection following challenge with homologous influenza virus. This plant-based production system offers safety and capacity advantages, which taken together with the protective efficacy data reported, demonstrates the promise of this approach for subunit influenza vaccine development.

A plant-produced influenza subunit vaccine protects ferrets against virus challenge
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 2008 2: 33–40

There are a couple of interesting features of this paper, chief among them being the complete obscurity of the reasons why they use lichenase fusions, and what exactly their “launch vector” – which is what they use to express their proteins transiently – is.  Because the reference they give is incorrect – it is to a journal they erroneously call “Influenza”, which is not listed by PubMed, and turns out to be Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses in fact – and is unavailable at our institution.  I am assuming, given the system uses a CaMV 35S promoter to drive RNA production, and they talk of “viral replication and target sequence expression from the [TMV] CP subgenomic mRNA promoter”, that the vector is a TMV-based replicon.  I was alerted by colleagues at the Journal Club to the fact that the same group used the same system – pBID4 “launch vector”, fusions to lichenase – for production of a HPV E7 vaccine in plants.  And referred to the same paper as this one does, for the vector and constructs.   Aargh!  I still don’t know why lichenase fusions are such a good idea!! 

A hint is given in the E7 paper: they say that “…these LicKM fusion proteins alone are able to activate both innate and adaptive antigen-specific immune responses”.  But they found in the paper under discussion here that alum was needed to get the best response…and they got the best yield AND immunogenicity out of their NA protein, which was expressed as a (presumably) soluble truncated native protein.  So the reason is still obscure.

The purification section of this paper is also woefully inadequate: saying “…recombinant antigens were enriched by ammonium sulphate precipitation followed by immobilised metal affinity chromatography and anion exchange chromatography, with dialysis after each step, to at least 80% purity” is NOT a method!  It is an anecdote, fit for a 1-minute talk maybe, but NOT for the Methods section of a paper.  Naughty, naughty!

Another interesting thing is the complexity of the vaccine constructs – again, exactly the same type of constructs as made for HPV E7; assembly-line vaccine producers, these guys!  These consist of the Gene of Choice (GoC) with a poly-His tag AND a KDEL (ER retention) tag at the C-terminus, AND the signal sequence of Nicotiana tabacum PR1a protein at their N-terminus.  This means (a) proteins get into the ER lumen, (b) get retained in the ER, (c) can be purified by Ni or other metal affinity column.  In addition to being fused to LickM.  Granted, the PR1 signal sequence is lost and the His tags can be removed – but the proteins still have significant “other” constituents – which is rather frowned on in a vaccine intended for humans.

I am also interested that they did not do the standard thing with their plant-produced HA GD protein and test for haemagglutination / RBC binding: this was in any case superseded by the fact that the vaccines were protective and antisera elicited by them worked in HI [haemagglutination-inhibition] assays, but it has long been regarded as a necessary first step.  I like these guys’ approach: forget the biochemistry; let’s see if it works!

All in all, a good paper despite our criticisms, which points up the very distinct possibility of being able to use plant production of influenza virus antigens for the rapid production of effective vaccines.

But I wish they’d included some more details….

Oxygen from viruses??

7 April, 2008

I thank my colleague Suhail Rafudeen for alerting me to this:

 “Some Of Our Oxygen Is Produced By Viruses Infecting Micro-organisms In The Oceans

ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2008) – Some of the oxygen we breathe today is being produced because of viruses infecting micro-organisms in the world’s oceans, scientists heard April 2, 2008 at the Society for General Microbiology’s 162nd meeting.

About half the world’s oxygen is being produced by tiny photosynthesising creatures called phytoplankton in the major oceans. These organisms are also responsible for removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere and locking it away in their bodies, which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die, removing it forever and limiting global warming.

“In major parts of the oceans, the micro-organisms responsible for providing oxygen and locking away carbon dioxide are actually single celled bacteria called cyanobacteria,” says Professor Nicholas Mann of the University of Warwick. “These organisms, which are so important for making our planet inhabitable, are attacked and infected by a range of different types of viruses.”

The researchers have identified the genetic codes of these viruses using molecular techniques and discovered that some of them are responsible for providing the genetic material that codes for key components of photosynthesis machinery.

“It is beginning to become to clear to us that at least a proportion of the oxygen we breathe is a by-product of the bacteria suffering from a virus infection,” says Professor Mann. “Instead of being viewed solely as evolutionary bad guys, causing diseases, viruses appear to be of central importance in the planetary process. In fact they may be essential to our survival.”

Viruses may also help to spread useful genes for photosynthesis from one strain of bacteria to another.

Adapted from materials provided by Society for General Microbiology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS”

Fascinating concept: viruses as an essential link in the circle of life?!  Not so far-fetched, though: just because we know them largely because of their propensity to cause, and our fascination with, diseases that affect us and our livestock and crops…doesn’t mean that is all there is.

Viruses have been around as long as any other form of life, and it would be strange indeed if some form(s) of commensalism and/or symbiosis had not evolved.

…and see here for some fascinating speculations on the possible involvement of viruses with the origin of eukaryotes.

So there IS light at the end of the tunnel

1 April, 2008

After the shock of the second failure of an HIV-1 vaccine in Phase III trials recently – detailed to some extent here – we were surely due some relief.

And it is here: William Borkowsky and team have just published in AIDS and Human Retroviruses a paper which describes what amounts to successful “autologous immunisation” of a paediatric HIV-infected cohort by a series of progressively longer treatment interruptions, or drug holidays. 

The children, who ranged in age from 4 to 19, were all on HAART or highly active anti-retroviral drug therapy, and all had initially undetectable viral loads.  The subjects in the experimental arm of the trial were given a series of drug holidays of progressively increasing length over up to 17 cycles of treatment in some cases.  In the words of the authors:

“Increased HIV-specific immune responses and decreased HIV RNA were seen in those children who have had >10 cycles of antiretroviral discontinuations of increasing durations acting as autologous virus vaccinations. Other studies may have failed due to an insufficient number of exposures to HIV; most of the studies had fewer than six drug interruptions.”

This is a quite momentous finding: given that it is known that increased CD8+ T-cell responses to Gag proteins of HIV are correlated with decreased viral load in infected patients, this means that many times-repeated exposures of immunocompetent people to live virus seems to successfully elicit suitable immunity and reduce viral load, just as a vaccine could be wished to do.

But in all the vaccine trials, and in previous treatment interruption trials, no more than 4 vaccinations or 6 drug interruptions were performed – which may mean, given the lack of persistence of T-cell as compared to antibody responses, that simply too few treatments have been given in the past.

So is the solution to dose people considerably more often in prophylactic vaccine trials aimed at protecting against HIV infection? 

And possibly with subunit vaccines (such as our recent offering…B-) or killed whole-virus vaccines instead of “genetic vaccines” such as the DNA and virus-vectored HIV gene vaccines which have been so popular up to now?

We need to explore these possibilities – and to explore them soon.  There is a lot riding on the outcome….

Virus origins: from what did viruses evolve or how did they initially arise?

19 March, 2008

This was originally written as an Answer to a Question posted to Scientific American Online; however, as what they published was considerably shorter and simpler than what I wrote, I shall post the [now updated] original here.

The answer to this question is not simple, because, while viruses all share the characteristics of being obligate intracellular parasites which use host cell machinery to make their components which then self-assemble to make particles which contain their genomes, they most definitely do not have a single origin, and indeed their origins may be spread out over a considerable period of geological and evolutionary time.

Viruses infect all types of cellular organisms, from Bacteria through Archaea to Eukarya; from E. coli to mushrooms; from amoebae to human beings – and virus particles may even be the single most abundant and varied organisms on the planet, given their abundance in all the waters of all the seas of planet Earth.  Given this diversity and abundance, and the propensity of viruses to swap and share successful modules between very different lineages and to pick up bits of genome from their hosts, it is very difficult to speculate sensibly on their deep origins – but I shall outline some of the probable evolutionary scenarios.

The graphic depicts a possible scenario for the evolution of viruses: “wild” genetic elements could have escaped, or even been the agents for transfer of genetic information between, both RNA-containing and DNA-containing “protocells”, to provide the precursors of retroelements and of RNA and DNA viruses.  Later escapes from Bacteria, Archaea and their progeny Eukarya would complete the virus zoo.

virus descent

It is generally accepted that many viruses have their origins as “escapees” from cells; rogue bits of nucleic acid that have taken the autonomy already characteristic of certain cellular genome components to a new level.  Simple RNA viruses are a good example of these: their genetic structure is far too simple for them to be degenerate cells; indeed, many resemble renegade messenger RNAs in their simplicity.

RdRp cassettes and virus evolution

RNA virus supergroups and RdRp and CP cassettes

What they have in common is a strategy which involves use of a virus-encoded RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) or replicase to replicate RNA genomes – a process which does not occur in cells, although most eukaryotes so far investigated do have RdRp-like enzymes involved in regulation of gene expression and resistance to viruses.  The surmise is that in some instances, an RdRp-encoding element could have became autonomous – or independent of DNA – by encoding its own replicase, and then acquired structural protein-encoding sequences by recombination, to become wholly autonomous and potentially infectious.

A useful example is the viruses sometimes referred to as the “Picornavirus-like” and “Sindbis virus-like” supergroups of ssRNA+ viruses, respectively.  These two sets of viruses can be neatly divided into two groups according to their RdRp affinities, which determine how they replicate.  However, they can also be divided according to their capsid protein affinities, which is where it is obvious that the phenomenon the late Rob Goldbach termed “cassette evolution” has occurred: some viruses that are relatively closely related in terms of RdRp and other non-structural protein sequences have completely different capsid proteins and particle morphologies, due to acquisition by the same RdRp module of different structural protein modules.

Given the very significant diversity in these sorts of viruses, it is quite possible that this has happened a number of times in the evolution of cellular organisms on this planet – and that some single-stranded RNA viruses like bacterial RNA viruses or bacteriophages and some plant viruses (like Tobacco mosaic virus, TMV) may be very ancient indeed.

However, other ssRNA viruses – such as the negative sense mononegaviruses, Order Mononegaviraleswhich includes the families Bornaviridae, Rhabdoviridae, Filoviridae and Paramyxoviridae, represented by Borna disease virus, rabies virus, Zaire Ebola virus, and measles and mumps viruses respectively – may be evolutionarily much younger.  In this latter case, the viruses all have the same basic genome with genes in the same order and helical nucleocapsids within differently-shaped enveloped particles.

Their host ranges also indicate that they originated in insects: the ones with more than one phylum of host either infect vertebrates and insects or plants and insects, while some infect insects only, or only vertebrates – indicating an evolutionary origin in insects, and a subsequent evolutionary divergence in them and in their feeding targets.

Slide1

HIV: a retrovirus

The Retroid Cycle

The ssRNA retroviruses – like HIV – are another good example of possible cell-derived viruses, as many of these have a very similar genetic structure to elements which appear to be integral parts of cell genomes – termed retrotransposons –  and share the peculiar property of replicating their genomes via a pathway which goes from single-stranded RNA through double-stranded DNA (reverse transcription) and back again, and yet have become infectious.  They can go full circle, incidentally, by permanently becoming part of the cell genome by insertion into germ-line cells – so that they are then inherited as “endogenous retroviruses“, which can be used as evolutionary markers for species divergence.

The Retroid Cycle

Indeed, there is a whole extended family of reverse-transcribing mobile genetic elements in organisms ranging from bacteria all the way through to plants, insects and vertebrates, indicating a very ancient evolutionary origin indeed – and which includes two completely different groups of double-standed DNA viruses, the vertebrate-infecting hepadnaviruses or hepatitis B virus-like group, and the plant-infecting badna- and caulimoviruses.

Metaviruses and pseudoviruses

These are two families of long terminal repeat-containing (LTR) retrotransposons, with different genetic organisations. 

Members of family Pseudoviridae, also known as Ty1/copia elements,  have polygenic genomes of 5-9 kb ssRNA which encode a retrovirus-like Gag-type protein, and a polyprotein with protease (PR), integrase (IN) and reverse transcriptase / RNAse H  (RT) domains, in that order.  While some members also encode an env-like ORF, the 30-40 nm particles that are an essential replication intermediate have no envelope or Env protein.  They are not infectious.  Host species include yeasts, insects, plants and algae.

Metaviruses – family Metaviridae – are also known as Ty3-gypsy elements, and have ssRNA genomes of 4-10 kb in length.  They replicate via particles 45-100 nm in diameter composed of Gag-type protein, and some species have envelopes and associated Env proteins.  Gene order in the genomes is Gag-PR-RT-IN-(Env), as for retroviruses.  One virus – Drosophila melanogaster Gypsy virus – is infectious; however, as for pseudoviruses, most are not.  The genomes have been found in all lineages of eukaryotes so far studied in sufficient detail.

Both pseudovirus and metavirus genomes are clearly related to classic retroviruses; moreover, RT sequences point to metavirus RTs being most closely related to plant DNA pararetrovirus lineage of caulimoviruses.  This gives rise to the speculation that pseudoviruses and metaviruses have a common and ancient ancestor – and that two different metavirus lineages gave rise to retroviruses and caulimoviruses respectively.

All of these cellular elements and viruses have in common a “reverse transcriptase” or RNA-dependent DNA polymerase, which may in fact be an evolutionary link back to the postulated “RNA world” at the dawn of evolutionary history, when the only extant genomes were composed of RNA, and probably double-stranded RNA.  Thus, a part of what could be a very primitive machinery indeed has survived into very different nucleic acid lineages, some viral and many wholly cellular in nature, from bacteria through to higher eukaryotes.

The possibility that certain non-retro RNA viruses can actually insert bits of themselves by obscure mechanisms into host cell genomes – and afford them protection against future infection – complicates the issue rather, by reversing the canonical flow of genetic material.  This may have been happening over aeons of evolutionary time, and to have involved hosts and viruses as diverse as plants (integrated poty– and geminivirus sequences), honeybees (integrated Israeli bee paralysis virus) – and the recent discovery of “…integrated filovirus-like elements in the genomes of bats, rodents, shrews, tenrecs and marsupials…” which, in the case of mammals, transcribed fragments “…homologous to a fragment of the filovirus genome whose expression is known to interfere with the assembly of Ebolavirus”.

Rolling circle replication

There are also obvious similarities in mode of replication between a family of elements which include bacterial plasmids, bacterial single-strand DNA viruses, and viruses of eukaryotes which include geminiviruses and nanoviruses of plants, parvoviruses of insects and vertebrates, and circoviruses and anelloviruses of vertebrates.

Geminivirus particle

These agents all share a “rolling circle” DNA replication mechanism, with replication-associated proteins and DNA sequence motifs that appear similar enough to be evolutionarily related – and again demonstrate a continuum from the cell-associated and cell-dependent plasmids through to the completely autonomous agents such as relatively simple but ancient bacterial and eukaryote viruses.

geminivirus rolling circle replication

Big DNA viruses

Mimivirus particle, showing basic structure

However, there are a significant number of viruses with large DNA genomes for which an origin as cell-derived subcomponents is not as obvious.  In fact, one of the largest viruses yet discovered – mimivirus, with a genome size of greater than 1 million base pairs of DNA – have genomes which are larger and more complex than those of obligately parasitic bacteria such as Mycoplasma genitalium (around 0.5 million), despite their sharing the life habits of tiny viruses like canine parvovirus (0.005 million, or 5000 bases).

Mimivirus has been joined, since its discovery in 2003, by Megavirus (2011; 1.2 Mbp) and now Pandoravirus (2013; 1.9 -2.5 Mbp). 

The nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses or NCLDVs – including pox-, irido-, asfar-, phyco-, mimi-, mega- and pandoraviruses, among others – have been grouped as the proposed Order Megavirales, and it is proposed that they evolved, and started to diverge, before the evolutionary separation of eukaryotes into their present groupings.

It is a striking fact that the largest viral DNA genomes so far characterised seem to infect primitive eukaryotes such as amoebae and simple marine algae – and they and other large DNA viruses like pox- and herpesviruses seem to be related to cellular DNA sequences only at a level close to the base of the “tree of life”.

Variola virus, the agent of smallpox. Image courtesy Russell Kightley Media.

This indicates a very ancient origin or set of origins for these viruses, which may conceivably have been as obligately parasitic cellular lifeforms which then made the final adaptation to the “virus lifestyle”.

However, their actual origin could be in an even more complex interaction with early cellular lifeforms, given that viruses may well be responsible for very significant episodes of evolutionary change in cellular life, all the way from the origin of eukaryotes through to the much more recent evolution of placental mammals.  In fact, there is informed speculation as to the possibility of viruses having significantly influenced the evolution of eukaryotes as a cognate group of organisms, including the possibility that a large DNA virus may have been the first cellular nucleus.

In summary, viruses are as much a concept as a unitary entity: all viruses have in common, given their polyphyletic origins, is a base-level strategy for replicating their genomes.  Otherwise, their origins are possibly as varied as their genomes, and may remain forever obscure.

I am indebted to Russell Kightley for use of his excellent virus images.

Updated 12th August 2015

Who do you bind to, my lovely?

11 February, 2008

Hard on the heels of the revelation that it’s the shape of the receptor that matters for H5N1 and other flu virus binding to cells, rather than the receptor chemistry, comes the finding reported in the J Virology of Feb 2008  that there is a distinct difference in the receptor binding ability of the supposed  SARS coronavirus (SARSCoV) progenitor found in horseshoe bats, and SARSCoV itself – despite SARSthe viruses being very similar in genome organisation and indeed genome sequence.

SARSCoV isolates from humans bind angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in order to gain entry into cells.  While the virus is very closely  related to isolates found in several Himalayan palm civets and a raccoon dog in Chinese live-meat markets, palm civets in particular outside markets were largely free from SARS-CoV infection – indicating to epidemiologists that this was not the natural animal reservoir of SARSCoV.  Other studies determined that there was a group of CoVs very similar to SARSCoV in horseshoe bats – but that these viruses differed from human isolates mainly in the N-terminal regions of their S proteins, which enable virus entry into host cells.  The SARS-like CoV (SL-CoV) S proteins have significant sequence divergence in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) from SARS-CoV S protein RBDs, including two deletions of 5 and 12 or 13 aa, and it has been predicted that SL-CoVs would not use ACE2 as a receptor.

In the absence of infectious isolates of SL-CoVs, these authors tested this hypothesis using an HIV-derived pseudovirus system: this used luciferase-expressing HIV-derived DNA constructs co-transfected into HeLa cells stably transduced with the ACE2 receptor gene from human, bat or civet, together with S gene-expressing plasmid constructs.  The system results in HIV-like virions containing RNA which expresses luciferase, with S protein on their surfaces.  Binding of pseudovirions to cells and their subsequent uptake was assayed by luminometry after addition of the luciferase substrate to cell lysates.

They found that that the bat SL-CoV S protein was unable to use ACE2 for cell entry regardless of the origin of the ACE2, and that the human SARS-CoV S could not use bat ACE2 as a functional receptor. Interestingly, after replacement of a small segment SLCoV S protein by the cognate sequence of SARSCoV S, the SL-CoV S protein also bound human ACE2.

The authors claim that this study reveals the “first example of host switching achievable for G2b CoVs [the taxonomic group including SL-CoVs] under laboratory conditions by the exchange of a relatively small sequence segment”.  They speculate that, given that bats may be coinfected by several CoVs, and that they associate at very high density, and CoVs have a tendency towards recombination, that it is reasonable to assume that bats act as a natural mixing vessel for CoVs, which can result in the emergence of novel viruses which could easily cross species barriers.

Adding fuel to the speculative fire is another paper in the same issue: this reports that there is evidence of a recombinant origin for SL-CoVs, and there is probably “…an uncharacterized SLCoV lineage that is phylogenetically closer to S[ARS]CoVs than any of the currently sampled bat SLCoVs.”

So let’s all just wait for the next one, shall we?

MicrobiologyBytes Archive

14 December, 2007

Before I established this site, I posted a number of guest blogs to do with viruses on Alan Cann’s very wonderful MicrobiologyBytes site. Here are links to all the virus-related ones.

Maybe Not Quite The End

Posted on January 15, 2008
Review of a paper describing the receptor for the H5N1 HA protein

Given the current scare over H5N1 influenza virus in swans in the UK, it is possibly timely to recall that I wrote a little while ago in MicrobiologyBytes about how easy it appeared to be for […]

Bandicoot Blues

Posted on November 30, 2007
Description of a unique newly-described virus that looks like a chimaera of a papillomavirus and a polyomavirus

Now that the dust has begun to settle after the launch of Merck’s much-hyped Gardasil genital papillomavirus vaccine – discussed in MicrobiologyBytes here and here – people are turning again to looking at the natural history […]

Hurting rather than helping?

Posted on November 21, 2007
Some news on the failure of the Merck Adenovirus 5-vectored HIV vaccine

It should not have escaped the eye of the interested bystander that there has been a most unfortunate and premature end to a HIV vaccine trial recently – and that something that had been tested as […]

A Deeper Meaning

Posted on November 10, 2007
Some microbiology-related poetry….

I inadvertently became a published literary critic a little while ago. A long-time English Department colleague asked me for some help interpreting the collected works of possibly the most important modern poet from South Africa, and […]

Don’t look now, they’re in your genes

Posted on September 14, 2007
Description of natural insertions of virus gene fragments into a variety of organisms and how they elicit pathogen-derived resistance

And they’re protecting you! If you’re an insect, that is. Or possibly a plant.
In a remarkable convergence of news, an Israeli group led by Ilan Sela described how Israeli acute paralysis virus, which is implicated in […]

To bee or not to bee

Posted on September 11, 2007
News of how a single virus is suspected in the causation of “colony collapse disorder” of bee hives in the USA

A major recent mystery in US agriculture has been the phenomenon of “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) in honey bees. […]

This is the End

Posted on August 29, 2007
H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus mutates…

This is the End. Or the beginning of the end. Or possibly, the end of the beginning?
To misquote the immortal Bill Shankly: “It’s not a matter of life and death: it’s much more important than that”.
Having […]

Rolling down the road

Posted on August 27, 2007
Musings on rolling circle replication in viruses

In my idle moments (alas, too few these days!) I often try to think up lists of rock songs with a virus theme: you know, like “Cucumo” by the Beech Boys… “I got them ol’ burnin’, […]

Rooting the tree

Posted on August 3, 2007
News on inferring “ancestor sequences” for HIV to help make broadly effective vaccines

While fossilized viruses have never been found, we can often infer probable lines of evolutionary descent by analysis of extant genomic sequences. This sort of molecular phylogenetic approach has thrown up all sorts of interesting […]

It’s Life, Jim, but not as we know it…

Posted on July 24, 2007
Exploring what it means to be “alive”

Which could well apply to viruses, my very own favourite organisms – after all, they don’t respire, grow, excrete or any of those other good things […]

A feeling for the molechism*

Posted on June 26, 2007
Musings on what viruses are.

I think it’s permissible, after working on your favourite virus for over 20 years, to develop some sort of feeling for it: you know, the kind of insight that isn’t […]

Plus ça change, plus c’est … le same Web, only better?

Posted on June 8, 2007
A personal history of teaching Virology via the Web.

My, how things do change… I found myself reflecting, while I was looking over the detritus on our Web server of some 13 years of posting pages on the Web. “Orphan” pages, unconnected […]