| Literature DB >> 23717616 |
Maria Razzauti1, Angelina Plyusnina, Heikki Henttonen, Alexander Plyusnin.
Abstract
Microevolution of Puumala hantavirus (PUUV) was studied throughout a population cycle of its host, the bank vole (Myodes glareolus). We monitored PUUV variants circulating in the host population in Central Finland over a five-year period that included two peak-phases and two population declines. Of 1369 bank voles examined, 360 (26.3%) were found infected with PUUV. Partial sequences of each of the three genome segments were recovered (approx. 12% of PUUV genome) from 356 bank voles. Analyses of these sequences disclosed the following features of PUUV evolution: 1) nucleotide substitutions are mostly silent and deduced amino acid changes are mainly conservative, suggesting stabilizing selection at the protein level; 2) the three genome segments accumulate mutations at a different rate; 3) some of the circulating PUUV variants are frequently observed while others are transient; 4) frequently occurring PUUV variants are composed of the most abundant segment genotypes (copious) and new transient variants are continually generated; 5) reassortment of PUUV genome segments occurs regularly and follows a specific pattern of segments association; 6) prevalence of reassortant variants oscillates with season and is higher in the autumn than in the spring; and 7) reassortants are transient, i.e., they are not competitively superior to their parental variants. Collectively, these observations support a quasi-neutral mode of PUUV microevolution with a steady generation of transient variants, including reassortants, and preservation of a few preferred genotypes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23717616 PMCID: PMC3661530 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of bank voles captured during the study, PUUV prevalence and proportions of A and B genogroups and reassortants at Konnevesi.
| May | Oct. | May + Oct. | May | Oct. | May | Oct. | May | Oct. | Total | ||
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | |||||||
|
| 47 | 100 | 8 | 54 | 132 | 237 | 625 | 78 | 88 | 1369 | |
|
| 22 | 22 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 106 | 155 | 28 | 5 | 360 | |
|
| (46.8) | (22) | (13) | (11.4) | (44.7) | (24.8) | (35.9) | (5.7) | (26.3) | ||
|
| 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 40 | 51 | 13 | 5 | 125 | |
|
| (27.8) | (18.2) | (28.6) | (33.3) | (37.7) | (32.9) | (46.4) | (100) | (35.1) | ||
|
| 10 | 13 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 53 | 67 | 9 | 0 | 163 | |
|
| (55.6) | (59.1) | (57.1) | (46.7) | (50) | (43.2) | (32.1) | (45.8) | |||
|
| 3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 37 | 6 | 0 | 68 | |
|
| (16.7) | (22.7) | (14.3) | (20) | (12.3) | (23.9) | (21.4) | (19.1) | |||
Genetic diversity of PUUV variants at Konnevesi.
| Genome segment | S | M | L | |
|
| nt | 455 | 452 | 536 |
| aa | 151 | 150 | 178 | |
|
| Groups | 53 | 50 | 79 |
| Within group | 17 | 16 | 24 | |
| Within group | 33 | 32 | 38 | |
|
| Groups | 6.2 | 4.8 | 10.1 |
| Within group | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | |
| Within group | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3.2 | |
|
| Between groups | - | - | 1 ( |
| Within group | 3 (K41R, M75I, D79E) | 3 (S11N, E43K, C109G) | 3 (I43V, N93I, N168K) | |
| Within group | 9 (F31I, V33E, R39K, P57S, Q78P, D79N, A87V, A97S, Q144P) | 4 (P71L, S92P, S101A, I110V) | 8 (T7S, D46E, R67C, N86D, R116K, T121I, S141G, V165I) | |
|
| Total | 45 | 38 | 61 |
| Within group | 11 | 18 | 26 | |
| Within groups | 34 | 20 | 35 | |
|
| Between groups | 10 | 7 | 29 |
Figure 1Phylogenetic trees.
Phylogenetic trees (Neighbor-Joining) calculated for the S, M and L segment sequences of PUUV, and contings of the three segment sequences: (A) partial S (nt 631–1085); (B) partial M (nt 2162–2613); (C) partial L (nt 505–1040); (D) a contig of the three genome segments omitting reassortant variants, and (E) a contig of the three genome segments including reassortant variants. A maximum clade credibility tree with an arbitrary root is shown with mean branch lengths (substitutions per site), and non-parametric bootstrap percentages are shown for each node. DOBV, ANDV, SNV and TULV were used as outgroups and omitted for the graphical representation.
Figure 2Genetic relationships between (A) S-segment, (B) M-segment and (C) L-segment genotypes. Relationships were constructed using Network analysis and the MJ algorithm.
Genotypes of group A are represented by red circles and genotypes of group B by blue circles. The size of the circle is proportional to the number of representatives of each genotype; and numbers are shown inside. Yellow circles are median vectors suggested by Network. The numbers on the link-lines show the number of mutations between genotypes; the length of link-lines is not proportional to the number of mutations.
Genetic variants of PUUV observed in the Konnevesi bank vole population.
| Group A | Group B | Reassortant | Total | |
|
| 125 | 163 | 68 | 356 |
|
| 46 | 82 | 56 | 184 |
|
| 14 (30.4) | 22 (26.8) | 3 (5.4) | 39 (21.2) |
|
| 32 (69.6) | 60 (73.2) | 53 (94.6) | 145 (78.8) |
Figure 3PUUV segment genotypes circulating in the bank vole population at Konnevesi from 2005 to 2009.
Relationships between S-, M- and L-segment genotypes was constructed using Network. Genotypes of group A are represented by red circles and genotypes of group B by blue circles. The size of the circles is proportional to the number of representatives of each genotype; and numbers are shown inside. Most abundant circulating genotypes (copious) are designated in red and blue, for the A and B genogroups, respectively. Sporadic genotypes, detected only once, are shown in black and sporadic genotypes observed through several seasons are shown in a square. Yellow circles are median vectors suggested by Network. The numbers on the link-lines show the number of mutations between genotypes; the length of link-lines is not proportional to the number of mutations. Note that the trapping effort was increased from 2007 thus numbers from 2005 are not directly comparable to those of 2007–09.
PUUV variants repeatedly detected in the bank vole population.
| no. of representatives | variant | Genotypes | no. of trapping sites | trapping seasons | ||
| S | M | L | ||||
| 2 |
| 4 | 11 | 24 | 1 | 5/05; 10/05 |
| 3 |
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 10/08 |
| 53 |
|
|
|
| 17 | 5/07; 10/07; 5/08; 10/08; 5/09 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 10 | 2 | 5/08; 10/08 |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 5/08; 10/08 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 16 | 2 | 5/05; 10/05 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 18 | 1 | 10/05 |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 5/08 |
| 5 |
|
|
|
| 4 | 5/08; 10/08 |
| 8 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 5/08; 10/08 |
| 4 |
|
|
| 11 | 2 | 5/08; 10/08 |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 1 | 5/09 |
| 4 |
|
|
| 4 | 1 | 5/09 |
| 2 |
|
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 5/09 |
| 2 |
| 14 |
|
| 1 | 10/08 |
| 21 |
|
|
|
| 7 | 10/07; 5/08; 10/08 |
| 6 |
|
|
|
| 5 | 10/08; 5/09 |
| 2 |
| 7 |
|
| 1 | 10/08 |
| 2 |
| 18 | 6 | 35 | 1 | 5/08 |
| 3 |
| 20 | 14 | 15 | 1 | 5/08 |
| 2 |
| 20 | 14 | 16 | 2 | 10/08 |
| 5 |
|
|
|
| 4 | 10/07; 5/08 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 14 | 1 | 5/07 |
| 6 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 10/08 |
| 3 |
|
|
| 29 | 3 | 5/05 |
| 3 |
|
|
| 3 | 1 | 10/08 |
| 10 |
|
|
|
| 5 | 10/08; 5/09 |
| 3 |
|
| 11 |
| 2 | 10/08 |
| 4 |
| 31 | 12 |
| 2 | 10/08 |
| 2 |
|
|
| 6 | 1 | 10/08 |
| 12 |
|
|
|
| 5 | 10/07; 5/08 |
| 4 |
|
|
| 9 | 2 | 10/05 |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 5/05; 10/05 |
| 2 |
|
| 5 | 18 | 1 | 5/05 |
| 4 |
|
|
| 28 | 2 | 10/08 |
| 2 |
|
| 10 | 30 | 1 | 10/05 |
| 7 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 5/07; 5/08 |
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 10/08; 5/09 |
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 2 | 10/08 |
Most abundant (copious) segment genotypes are in bold and underlined. Shadowed blocks contain variants that might have derived from 1–2 point mutations in one or two segments (e.g., strains A13 and A16 could have originated by accumulating one or two mutations, respectively, in the L segment of A11 strains).
Proportion of copious segment genotypes that composed the PUUV variants detected during the five-year study period.
| Variants | Genogroup | no. of variants | % of | % of | % of |
|
|
| 3 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| 6 | ||||
|
|
| 11 | 74.1 | 66.7 | 29.6 |
|
| 16 | ||||
|
|
| 32 | 44.6 | 58.7 | 50 |
|
| 60 | ||||
|
| 56 | 75 | 66.1 | 53.6 |
PUUV Reassortants.
| Combination of segments (S/M/L) | no. of genomes | Reassortant pattern | no. of genomes (% of total number of reassortants) |
|
| 6 |
| 33 (48.5) |
|
| 27 | ||
|
| 10 |
| 32 (47.1) |
|
| 22 | ||
|
| 2 | S-M/ | 3 (4.4) |
|
| 1 |
Pattern for combination of genome segment. S, M and L stand for Small, Medium and Large genome segments, respectively.