Literature DB >> 28458911

Sequence-based taxonomic framework for the classification of uncultured single-stranded DNA viruses of the family Genomoviridae.

Arvind Varsani1,2, Mart Krupovic3.   

Abstract

With the advent of metagenomics approaches, a large diversity of known and unknown viruses has been identified in various types of environmental, plant, and animal samples. One such widespread virus group is the recently established family Genomoviridae which includes viruses with small (∼2-2.4 kb), circular ssDNA genomes encoding rolling-circle replication initiation proteins (Rep) and unique capsid proteins. Here, we propose a sequence-based taxonomic framework for classification of 121 new virus genomes within this family. Genomoviruses display ∼47% sequence diversity, which is very similar to that within the well-established and extensively studied family Geminiviridae (46% diversity). Based on our analysis, we establish a 78% genome-wide pairwise identity as a species demarcation threshold. Furthermore, using a Rep sequence phylogeny-based analysis coupled with the current knowledge on the classification of geminiviruses, we establish nine genera within the Genomoviridae family. These are Gemycircularvirus (n = 73), Gemyduguivirus (n = 1), Gemygorvirus (n = 9), Gemykibivirus (n = 29), Gemykolovirus (n = 3), Gemykrogvirus (n = 3), Gemykroznavirus (n = 1), Gemytondvirus (n = 1), Gemyvongvirus (n = 1). The presented taxonomic framework offers rational classification of genomoviruses based on the sequence information alone and sets an example for future classification of other groups of uncultured viruses discovered using metagenomics approaches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRESS DNA viruses; Genomoviridae; replication-associated protein; ssDNA viruses.

Year:  2017        PMID: 28458911      PMCID: PMC5399927          DOI: 10.1093/ve/vew037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virus Evol        ISSN: 2057-1577


1. Introduction

Viral metagenomics, fostered by powerful high-throughput sequencing methods, has recently revolutionized our perception of virus diversity in the environment. Many novel groups of uncultivated viruses have been discovered during the past decade, including viruses with small, moderately-sized, and even large genomes (Yau et al. 2011; Roux et al. 2012; Labonte and Suttle, 2013; Dutilh et al. 2014; Yutin et al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2015et al.; Dayaram et al. 2016; Steel et al. 2016). Many of these virus groups remain unclassified. To embrace the constantly growing output from viral metagenomics studies, virus taxonomy is increasingly switching from the traditional classification guided by biological features, such as serology, virion morphology or host range, to predominantly sequence-guided practices (Simmonds et al. 2017). Sequence-guided virus classification is relatively straightforward when the new viruses fall into existing taxa, with well-defined demarcation criteria. However, in the absence of isolated representatives and established taxonomic framework, rational definition of appropriate taxonomic ranks, such as families, genera, and species, for novel groups of uncultured viruses might be considerably more complex. Solutions to this problem are perhaps most urgently needed in the case of single-stranded (ss) DNA viruses, which are extremely widespread in nature. Due to their small genomes sizes, high mutation and recombination rates (Duffy and Holmes 2008; Duffy and Holmes 2009; Firth et al. 2009; Harkins et al. 2009, 2014; Grigoras et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2011; Streck et al. 2011; Nguyen et al. 2012; Cadar et al. 2013; Roux et al. 2013), and relative ease of genome amplification, an incredible diversity of these viruses has been discovered through metagenomics studies in all conceivable habitats. ssDNA viruses infect cells from all three domains of life and are currently classified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) into eleven families and one unassigned genus. Members of the families Microviridae and Inoviridae infect bacteria, viruses of the families Spiraviridae and Pleolipoviridae prey on archaea, whereas eukaryotes host viruses classified into the families Anelloviridae, Bidnaviridae, Circoviridae, Geminiviridae, Genomoviridae, Nanoviridae, and Parvoviridae, and the unassigned genus Bacilladnavirus. In addition, several widespread groups of uncultured viruses discovered by viral metagenomics remain unclassified, predominantly those that are circular replication-associated protein encoding single-stranded (CRESS) DNA viruses (Simmonds et al. 2017). The Genomoviridae family is one of the most recently established families of ssDNA viruses (Adams et al. 2016; Krupovic et al. 2016). The family currently includes a single genus Gemycircularvirus, which contains a single species, Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1, encompassing a single isolate, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum hypovirulence-associated DNA virus 1 (SsHADV-1). SsHADV-1 was isolated from a plant–pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and is the only ssDNA virus known to infect fungi (Yu et al. 2010, 2013). Recently, Liu et al (2016) have shown that SsHADV-1 is able to infect a mycophagous insect (Lycoriella ingenua) which acts as a transmission vector. SsHADV-1 virions are non-enveloped, isometric, 20–22 nm in diameter, and assembled from a single capsid protein (CP) (Yu et al. 2010). The genome is a circular ssDNA molecule of 2,166 nucleotides and contains two genes—for CP and rolling-circle replication initiation protein (Rep). Like in many other ssDNA viruses with circular genomes, the large intergenic region of SsHADV-1 contains a potential stem-loop structure with a nonanucleotide (TAATATTAT) motif at its apex, which is likely to be important for rolling-circle replication initiation. The CP of SsHADV-1 is not recognizably similar to the corresponding proteins from viruses in other taxa. Although SsHADV-1 remains the only isolated and classified member of the Genomoviridae, 121 viral genomes with varying degree of similarity to that of SsHADV-1 have been recovered and sequenced from various environmental, plant- and animal-associated samples, indicating that these viruses are widespread and abundant in the environment (Table 1). However, a proper taxonomic framework and demarcation criteria necessary to accommodate these viruses within the family Genomoviridae are lacking. Here, we explore the diversity and evolution of uncultured SsHADV-1-like viruses and attempt to establish a framework for their classification based on sequence data alone.
Table 1.

Details of all members of the Genomoviridae.

GenusSpeciesAccession #Sequence IDIsolation sourceCommon nameSample typeCountryReference
GemycircularvirusBlackbird associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371641P9Turdus merulaBlackbirdFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Blackbird associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371642P22Turdus merulaBlackbirdFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Blackbird associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371643as41Ovis ariesSheepFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Bovine associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86225352 Fec78023 cowBos taurusCowFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Bromus associated gemycircularvirus 1KM510192BasCV-3 NZ-NZG01 Sef-2012Bromus hordeaceusSoft brome/Bull grassLeafNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015b)
Cassava associated gemycircularvirus 1JQ412056G14Manihot esculentaCassavaLeafGhanaDayaram et al. (2012)
Cassava associated gemycircularvirus 1JQ412057G5Manihot esculentaCassavaLeafGhanaDayaram et al. (2012)
Chickadee associated gemycircularvirus 1KT309029254065908Poecile atricapillusBlack-capped chickadeeBuccal and cloacal swabUSAHanna et al. (2015)
Chicken associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224327 Fec79971 chickenGallus gallus domesticusChickenFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Chicken associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224429 Fec79971 IlamaLama glamaLlamaFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Chicken associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224630 Fec79971 horseEquus ferus caballusHorseFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Chicken associated gemycircularvirus 2KT86224227 Fec16497 chickenGallus gallus domesticusChickenFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Dragonfly associated gemycircularvirus 1JX185429FL2-5X-2010Erythemis simplicicollisDragonflyAbdomenUSARosario et al. (2012)
Equine associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224830 Fec80061 horseEquus ferus caballusHorseFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Fur seal associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371638as50Arctocephalus forsteriNew Zealand fur sealFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Fur seal associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224127 Fec1 chickenGallus gallus domesticusChickenFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Gerygone associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371636P24aGerygone albofrontataChatham Island warblerFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Gerygone associated gemycircularvirus 2KF371637P24bGerygone albofrontataChatham Island warblerFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Gerygone associated gemycircularvirus 3KF371639P24cGerygone albofrontataChatham Island warblerFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Hypericum associated gemycircularvirus 1KF413620VNHJ1WHypericum japonicumHypericumLeafVietnamDu et al. (2014)
Lama associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224529 Fec80018 llamaLama glamaLlamaFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Lama associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224730 Fec80018 horseEquus ferus caballusHorseFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Mallard associated gemycircularvirus 1KF371635as24Anas platyrhynchosMallard duckFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Miniopterus associated gemycircularvirus 1KJ641719BtMf-CV-23/GD2012Miniopterus fuliginosusBatPharyngeal & rectal swabsChinaWu et al. (2016)
Mongoose associated gemycircularvirus 1KP263547478dHerpestes ichneumonEgyptian mongooseFaecesPortugalConceicao-Neto et al. (2015)
Mosquito associated gemycircularvirus 1HQ335086SDBVL GCulex erythrothoraxMosquitoMosquito samplesUSANg et al. (2011)
Odonata associated gemycircularvirus 1KM598385OdaGmV-1-US-260BC-12Ischnura positaDamselflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Odonata associated gemycircularvirus 1KM598386OdaGmV-1-US-260SR1-12Pantala hymenaeaDragonflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Odonata associated gemycircularvirus 2KM598387OdaGmV-2-US-1642KW-12Aeshna multicolorDragonflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Odonata associated gemycircularvirus 2KM598388OdaGmV-2-US-1634LM2-12Libellula saturataDragonflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Poaceae associated gemycircularvirus 1KT253577PaGmV-1 TO STO14-29204 2014Brachiaria deflexaSignalgrassLeafTongaMale et al. (2015)
Poaceae associated gemycircularvirus 1KT253578PaGmV-1 TO STO15-29204 2014Brachiaria deflexaSignalgrassLeafTongaMale et al. (2015)
Poaceae associated gemycircularvirus 1KT253579PaGmV-1 TO STO18-29204 2014Brachiaria deflexaSignalgrassLeafTongaMale et al. (2015)
Porcine associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86225049 Fec80061 pigSus scrofa domesticaPigFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Porcine associated gemycircularvirus 2KF371640as5Sus scrofaDomestic pigFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 1KT732804Tbat 45285Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 1KT732805Tbat 47364Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 2KT732792Tbat 103791Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 2KT732793Tbat A 103791Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 3KT732797Tbat A 103852Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 4KT732814Tbat H 103806Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 5KT732801Tbat 12377Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 5KT732802Tbat H 12377Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 6KT732796Tbat H 103639Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 6KT732803Tbat 103951Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732807Tbat A 103746Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732808Tbat A 103909Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732809Tbat H 103746Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732810Tbat H 103909Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732811Tbat L 103746Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 7KT732812Tbat L 103909Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 8KT732806Tbat 31579Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 9KT732795Tbat 21383Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemycircularvirus 10KT732794Tbat H 103958Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Rat associated gemycircularvirus 1KR912221Ch-zjrat-01Rattus norvegicusRatBloodChinaLi et al. (2015)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1GQ365709SsHADV-1 CNSclerotinia sclerotiorumSclerotiniaMycelial samplesChinaYu et al. (2010)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KF268025SsHADV-1 NZ H6 2012River SedimentsRiver SedimentsNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2013)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KF268026SsHADV-1 NZ SR1 2012River SedimentsRiver SedimentsNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2013)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KF268027SsHADV-1 NZ SR3 2012River SedimentsRiver SedimentsNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2013)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KF268028SsHADV-1 NZ SR5 2012River SedimentsRiver SedimentsNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2013)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KM598382SsHADV-1-US-549LB-12Ischnura ramburiiDamselflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KM598383SsHADV-1-US-549DFS-12Erythemis simplicicollisDragonflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Sclerotinia gemycircularvirus 1KM598384SsHADV-1-US-549SR-12Pantala hymenaeaDragonflyAbdomenUSADayaram et al. (2015)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 1KJ547638BS3917Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 1KM821747SaGmV-1 NZ-BS3970-2012Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 2KJ547641BS4117Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 3KJ547636BS4014Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 4KJ547637BS3939Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 4KJ547640BS3972Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemycircularvirus 5KJ547639BS3970Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sheep associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86224947 Fec80064 sheepOvis ariesSheepFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Sheep associated gemycircularvirus 1KT86225151 Fec80064 sheepOvis ariesSheepFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Soybean associated gemycircularvirus 1KT598248SlaGemV1-1Glycine maxSoybeanLeafUSAMarzano and Domier, (2016)
GemyduguivirusDragonfly associated gemyduguivirus 1JX185428TO-DFS3B2-2010Pantala flavescensDragonflyAbdomenTongaRosario et al. (2012)
GemygorvirusCanine associated gemygorvirus 1KT86225453 Fec7 dogCanis lupus familiarisDogFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Mallard associated gemygorvirus 1JN704610VS4700006Meles melesEuropean badgerRectal swabNetherlandsvan den Brand et al. (2012)
Mallard associated gemygorvirus 1KT8622384 Fec7 duckAnas platyrhynchosDuckFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Mallard associated gemygorvirus 1KT86223924 Fec7 duckAnas platyrhynchosDuckFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemygorvirus 1KT732790Tbat A 103952Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemygorvirus 1KT732791Tbat H 103952Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Sewage derived gemygorvirus 1KJ413144349Homo sapiensHumanCervical sampleSouth Africa
Sewage derived gemygorvirus 1KJ547635BS3963Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Starling associated gemygorvirus 1KF371632P14Sturnus vulgarisEuropean starlingFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
GemykibivirusBadger associated gemykibivirus 1KP263543588tMeles melesEuropean badgerFaecesPortugalConceicao-Neto et al. (2015)
Black robin associated gemykibivirus 1KF371634P21Petroica traversiChatham Island black robinFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Blackbird associated gemykibivirus 1KF371633P22Turdus merulaBlackbirdFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
Bovine associated gemykibivirus 1LK931483HCBI8.215Bos taurusCowSerumGermanyLamberto et al. (2014)
Dragonfly associated gemykibivirus 1JX185430FL1-2X-2010Miathyria marcellaDragonflyAbdomenUSARosario et al. (2012)
Human associated gemykibivirus 1KJ547644BS3980Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Human associated gemykibivirus 1KJ547645BS3849Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Human associated gemykibivirus 1KP974694DB2Homo sapiensHumanPlasmaGermanyZhang et al. (2016)
Human associated gemykibivirus 1LK931485MSSI2.225Homo sapiensHumanBloodGermanyLamberto et al. (2014)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133075SL1Homo sapiensHumanCerebrospinal fluidSri LankaPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133076SL2Homo sapiensHumanCerebrospinal fluidSri LankaPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133077SL3Homo sapiensHumanCerebrospinal fluidSri LankaPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133078BZ1Homo sapiensHumanFaecesBrazilPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133079BZ2Homo sapiensHumanFaecesBrazilPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 2KP133080NPUntreated sewageSewageNepalPhan et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 3KP263546541cHerpestes ichneumonEgyptian mongooseFaecesPortugalConceicao-Neto et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 3KP987887GemyC1cHomo sapiensHumanPlasmaFranceUch et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 4KT363839GeTz1Homo sapiensHumanCerebrospinal fluidChinaZhou et al. (2015)
Human associated gemykibivirus 5KU343137HV-GcV2Homo sapiensHumanPericardial fluidFranceHalary et al. (2016)
Mongoose associated gemykibivirus 1KP263545160bHerpestes ichneumonEgyptian mongooseFaecesPortugalConceicao-Neto et al. (2015)
Pteropus associated gemykibivirus 1KT732813Tbat A 64418Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Rhinolophus associated gemykibivirus 1KJ641737BtRh-CV-6/Tibet2013Rhinolophus hipposiderosBatPharyngeal & rectal swabsChinaWu et al. (2016)
Rhinolophus associated gemykibivirus 1KP263544181aHerpestes ichneumonEgyptian mongooseFaecesPortugalConceicao-Neto et al. (2015)
Rhinolophus associated gemykibivirus 2KJ641726BtRf-CV-8/NM2013Rhinolophus ferrumequinumBatPharyngeal & rectal swabsChinaWu et al. (2016)
Sewage derived gemykibivirus 1KJ547643BS4149Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
Sewage derived gemykibivirus 1KT86224027 BS14149 chickenGallus gallus domesticusChickenFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Sewage derived gemykibivirus 1KT86225252 BS14149 cowBos taurusCowFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Sewage derived gemykibivirus 1KT86225556 BS14149 hareLepus europaeusHareFaecesNew ZealandSteel et al. (2016)
Sewage derived gemykibivirus 2KJ547642BS3911Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
GemykolovirusPteropus associated gemykolovirus 1KT732798Tbat A 103779Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemykolovirus 1KT732799Tbat H 103779Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
Pteropus associated gemykolovirus 2KT732800Tbat H 103921Pteropus tonganusBatFaecesTongaMale et al. (2016)
GemykrogvirusBovine associated gemykrogvirus 1LK931484HCBI9.212Bos taurusCowSerumGermanyLamberto et al. (2014)
Caribou associated gemykrogvirus 1KJ938717FaGmCV-13Rangifer tarandusCaribouFaecesCanadaNg et al. (2014)
Sewage derived gemykrogvirus 1KJ547634BS3913Sewage oxidation pondSewageNew ZealandKraberger et al. (2015a)
GemykroznavirusRabbit associated gemykroznavirus 1KF371631as35Oryctolagus cuniculusRabbitFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
GemytondvirusOstrich associated gemytondvirus 1KF371630as3Struthio camelusOstrichFaecesNew ZealandSikorski et al. (2013)
GemyvongvirusHuman associated gemyvongvirus 1KP974693DB1Homo sapiensHumanPlasmaGermanyZhang et al. (2016)
Details of all members of the Genomoviridae.

2. Genomoviridae diversity and species classification

At the time of the analysis (August, 2016), there were 121 SsHADV-1-like genome sequences in the GenBank database. Each of these genomes encodes two putative proteins homologous to the CP and Rep of SsHADV-1, highlighting strong coherence of this virus assemblage. Nevertheless, there is a considerable sequence divergence within the group (Supplementary Fig. S1). To investigate the extent of genomoviral sequence diversity, we analyzed the distribution of genome-wide pairwise identities (one minus Hamming distances of pairwise aligned sequences with pairwise deletion of gaps) across all 121 available genomes (Fig. 1A) using SDT v1.2 (Muhire, Varsani, and Martin 2014). Most of the virus genomes in our dataset share 56–66% genome-wide pairwise identities and only a handful contained nearly identical relatives (≥98% identity), indicating that sequence diversity among SsHADV-1-like viruses remains largely unexplored.
Figure 1.

Distribution of (A) genome-wide, (B) Rep and (C) CP pairwise identities (121 taxa) of genomoviruses calculated using SDT v1.2 (Muhire, Varsani, and Martin 2014).

Distribution of (A) genome-wide, (B) Rep and (C) CP pairwise identities (121 taxa) of genomoviruses calculated using SDT v1.2 (Muhire, Varsani, and Martin 2014). Pairwise comparison of the Rep and CP protein sequences revealed a broader distribution of identity values (Fig. 1B and C). Notably, the CPs were considerably more divergent that the Reps, with the highest proportion of pairwise identities being ∼33% (versus ∼48% for the Rep). This observation is in line with functional differences of the two proteins and the fact that viral CPs often encompass host recognition determinants which are under constant pressure to co-evolve with the cellular receptors (Kolawole et al. 2014; Shangjin, Cortey, and Segales, 2009). Based on the analysis of distribution of the pairwise identities across genomes, CPs and Reps, we consider a threshold of 78% to be a conservative value for species demarcation. Thus, all viral genomes showing identities higher than this value should be considered as variants of the existing species. Nonetheless, there may be situations where it is difficult to assign species because a particular new sequence is >78% similar to sequences from a particular species but is < 78% similar to other variants of that same species; >78% similar to sequences from two or more different species. To resolve the above conflicts, we suggest adopting a similar approach proposed for geminiviruses (Muhire et al. 2013; Varsani et al. 2014a, b; Brown et al. 2015). To resolve conflict 1, we suggest that the new sequence be classified within any species in which it shares >78% identity to any one variant formerly classified as belonging to that species, even if it is <78% identical to other viruses within that species. To resolve conflict 2, we suggest that the new sequence be considered as belonging to the species with sequences with which it shares the highest degree of similarity.

3. Rep-based approach for creation of genera

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses based on the Rep of 121 genomoviruses revealed several well-supported clades that could be considered as genera within the family (Fig. 2). We note that the clades obtained in the Rep-based phylogeny are not fully consistent with those obtained in the phylogenetic analysis of the full genome or the more diverse CP sequences (Figs 3 and 4). This is most explicit in the case of the newly proposed genus Gemykolovirus (see below). In the Rep-based tree corresponding sequences form a sister clade to the single representative of the genus Gemyduguivirus (Fig. 2). In contrast, in the whole-genome-based phylogeny, gemykoloviruses form a sister group to members of the genus Gemycircularvirus (Fig. 3). The reason for this incongruence is likely to be intra-familial recombination between different genomovirus genomes resulting in chimeric entities encoding Rep and CP with different evolutionary histories (Kraberger et al. 2015a). Indeed, in the CP-based tree gemykoloviruses are firmly nested within the large clade including the majority of gemycircularviruses (Fig. 4). Given that CP sequences of genomoviruses are considerably more divergent than the Rep sequences (Fig. 1), it appears reasonable to establish a higher (i.e., above the species level) taxonomic framework using the Rep (Fig. 2). The latter protein is also conserved in other eukaryotic ssDNA viruses (which is not the case for the CP) and can thus be used to assess the place of genomoviruses within the larger community of ssDNA viruses.
Figure 2.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the Rep amino acid sequences inferred using PHYML (Guindon et al. 2010) with LG + G+I substitution model and rooted with geminivirus sequences. The sequences of geminiviruses labeled with the corresponding genera names are used as a guide to identify genera within the Genomoviridae family. The cyan line shows a proposed demarcation of genera for both Genomoviridae and Geminiviridae. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed.

Figure 3.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the genomes of viruses in the Genomoviridae family. The tree was inferred using FastTree (Price, Dehal, and Arkin 2010) (GTR + CAT). The numbers at the branches indicate SH-like support values. The topology of tree supports the proposed genera demarcation at the genome level, despite there being evidence of recombination within the genomes. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed.

Figure 4.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the CP amino acid sequences inferred using PHYML (Guindon et al. 2010) with LG + G+I substitution models and rooted with geminivirus sequences. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the Rep amino acid sequences inferred using PHYML (Guindon et al. 2010) with LG + G+I substitution model and rooted with geminivirus sequences. The sequences of geminiviruses labeled with the corresponding genera names are used as a guide to identify genera within the Genomoviridae family. The cyan line shows a proposed demarcation of genera for both Genomoviridae and Geminiviridae. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the genomes of viruses in the Genomoviridae family. The tree was inferred using FastTree (Price, Dehal, and Arkin 2010) (GTR + CAT). The numbers at the branches indicate SH-like support values. The topology of tree supports the proposed genera demarcation at the genome level, despite there being evidence of recombination within the genomes. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of the CP amino acid sequences inferred using PHYML (Guindon et al. 2010) with LG + G+I substitution models and rooted with geminivirus sequences. Branches with <75% SH-like branch support have been collapsed. To evaluate the taxonomic structure of the Genomoviridae, we took advantage of the fact that in Rep-based phylogenetic analyses, genomoviruses consistently form a sister group to members of the Geminiviridae (Krupovic et al. 2016), a comprehensively characterized family of plant viruses with circular ssDNA genomes (Varsani et al. 2014b). Thus, using the established taxonomic framework of the Geminiviridae overlaid on the Rep-based phylogeny as a guide, we could define five clades and four additional singletons within the Genomoviridae branch (Fig. 2). The defined groups displayed equivalent intra-family divergence as the established genera within the family Geminiviridae (Varsani et al. 2014b). The nine groups were supported in both nucleotide and protein sequence inferred phylogenies (Supplementary Fig. S2). Consequently, in addition to the existing genus Gemycircularvirus, we propose establishing eight new genera within the family Genomoviridae. The details of the nine genera are summarized in Fig. 5 and briefly outlined below.
Figure 5.

Summary of genera and the associated species and their diversity (within genera) within the Genomoviridae family.

Summary of genera and the associated species and their diversity (within genera) within the Genomoviridae family.

3.1 Gemycircularvirus

This genus has the largest number of new species (n = 43; seventy-three genomes; Table 1) and includes SsHADV-1, the founding member of the family. Members of the genus display 44% diversity. Viruses within the forty-three species cluster with 99 and 96% branch support values in phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences, respectively (Figs 2 and 3).

3.2 Gemykibivirus

This is the second most populated genus (n = 16; twenty-nine genomes; Table 1) in the family with 43% diversity among its members. The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like kibi virus (kibi means circular in Amharic). Sequences within the fifteen species cluster with 93% branch support within phylogenetic trees constructed from Rep (Fig. 2) and two well-supported clades (100 and 96%) within trees constructed from full genome sequences (Fig 3), suggesting that recombination has played an important role in the evolution of this group.

3.3 Gemygorvirus

Members of this genus (n = 5; nine genomes; Table 1) display 49% diversity. The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like gor virus (gor means round in Hindi). Sequences within the five species cluster with 100 and 99% branch support within phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences, respectively (Figs 2 and 3).

3.4 Gemykolovirus

Members of this genus (n = 2; three genomes; Table 1) display 37% diversity. The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like kolo virus (kolo means round in Czech). Sequences within the two species cluster with 100 and 89% branch support within phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences, respectively (Figs 2 and 3).

3.5 Gemykrogvirus

Members of this genus (n = 3; three genomes; Table 1) display 33% diversity. The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like krog virus (krog means round in Slovenian). Sequences within the three species cluster with 99 and 100% branch support within phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences respectively (Figs 2 and 3).

3.5 Gemyvongvirus

The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like vong virus (vong means circular in Lao). The single species Human associated gemyvongvirus 1 (Table 1) within the genus shares between 56 and 62% genome-wide sequence similarity with viruses in other genera and is a divergent taxon in the phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences (Figs 2 and 3).

3.6 Gemytondvirus

The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like tond virus (tond means round in Maltese). The single species Ostrich associated gemytondvirus 1 (Table 1) within the genus shares between 53 and 61% genome-wide sequence similarity with viruses in other genera and is a divergent taxon in the phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences (Figs 2 and 3).

3.7 Gemykroznavirus

The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like krozna virus (krozna means circular in Slovenian). The single species Rabbit associated gemykroznavirus 1 (Table 1) within the genus shares between 56 and 61% genome-wide sequence similarity with other sequences in other genera and is a divergent taxon in the phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences (Figs 2 and 3).

3.8 Gemyduguivirus

The name of the genus is an acronym of words geminivirus-like and myco-like dugui virus (dugui means circular in Mongolian). The single species Dragonfly associated gemyduguivirus 1 (Table 1) within the genus shares between 57 and 62% genome-wide sequence similarity with viruses in other genera and is a divergent taxon in the phylogenetic trees constructed from either Rep or full genome sequences (Figs 2 and 3).

4. Conserved sequence motifs in the

CRESS DNA viruses replicate through the rolling circle replication (RCR) mechanism which is similar to that used by bacterial plasmids (Khan 1997; Chandler et al. 2013; Ruiz-Maso et al. 2015). RCR is initiated by the Rep, encoded by CRESS DNA viruses, cleaving the dsDNA between positions 7 and 8 of a nonanucleotide sequence located at a putative stem-loop structure at the origin of replication (Heyraud-Nitschke et al. 1995; Laufs et al. 1995b; Timchenko et al. 1999; Rosario, Duffy, and Breitbart, 2012). In the case of genomoviruses, this nonanucleotide is variable (‘TAWWDWRN’) with ‘TAATWYAT’ being the consensus nonanucleotide for gemycircularviruses, whereas gemykibiruses display the greatest variation in this motif—‘WATAWWHAN’ (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1). In contrast, we note that within the Geminiviridae family, including all recently described geminiviruses (Varsani et al. 2009; Briddon et al. 2010; Krenz et al. 2012; Loconsole et al. 2012; Bernardo et al. 2013; Heydarnejad et al. 2013; Ma et al. 2015; Bernardo et al. 2016), the consensus nonanucleotide motif is ‘TRAKATTRC’.
Figure 6.

Summary of conserved motifs, that is nonanucleotide and Rep motifs illustrated using WebLogo3 (Crooks et al. 2004) identified in the family Genomoviridae as a whole and its nine genera separately. Note the highly derived Walker A motif (GPHRRRRT) in the sole member of the genus Gemytondvirus.

Summary of conserved motifs, that is nonanucleotide and Rep motifs illustrated using WebLogo3 (Crooks et al. 2004) identified in the family Genomoviridae as a whole and its nine genera separately. Note the highly derived Walker A motif (GPHRRRRT) in the sole member of the genus Gemytondvirus. The N terminus of the Rep contains motifs that are important for initiating RCR and it is not surprising that some of these motifs are well conserved across many ssDNA viruses, phages, and plasmids that replicate using the RCR mechanism (Ilyina and Koonin, 1992; Vega-Rocha et al. 2007a; Rosario, Duffy, and Breitbart, 2012; Krupovic, 2013). The presence of a single catalytic tyrosine residue in the RCR motif III classifies genomovirus, geminivirus, bacilladnavirus, circovirus and nanovirus Reps as members of superfamily II (Ilyina and Koonin, 1992; Krupovic, 2013). In genomoviruses, the conserved sequence of the RCR motif I, which is thought to be involved in the recognition of iterative sequences associated with the origin of replication, is predominantly ‘uuTYxQ’ (u denotes hydrophobic residues and x any residue) (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1), with the exception of the Reps of currently known gemykoloviruses and gemykrogviruses. The genomovirus RCR motif II, ‘xHxHx’ (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1), resembles that found in geminiviruses, and early work has shown that histidines in this motif coordinate divalent metal ions, Mg2+ or Mn2+, which are important cofactors for endonuclease activity at the origin of replication (Koonin and Ilyina 1992; Laufs et al. 1995b). Genomoviruses have an RCR motif III of ‘YxxK’ and based on other Rep studies, this motif is involved in the dsDNA cleavage and subsequent covalent attachment of Rep through the catalytic tyrosine residue to the 5′ end of the cleaved product (Laufs et al. 1995a, b; Orozco and Hanley-Bowdoin, 1998; Timchenko et al. 1999; Steinfeldt, Finsterbusch, and Mankertz, 2006; Rosario, Duffy, and Breitbart, 2012). The conserved lysine residue in the RCR motif III (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1) is proposed to mediate binding and positioning during catalysis (Vega-Rocha et al. 2007a, b). A fourth conserved motif, the geminivirus Rep sequence (GRS), is only found in geminiviruses and genomoviruses (Fig. 6). In geminiviruses, it enables appropriate spatial arrangements of RCR motifs II and III (Nash et al. 2011). Site-directed mutagenesis of the GRS domain in tomato golden mosaic virus yielded non-infectious clones, demonstrating that the GRS is essential for geminivirus replication (Nash et al. 2011) and it is likely this is also the case for genomoviruses. Rep is a multifunctional protein, with both endonuclease and helicase activities. Rep helicase activity is mediated by conserved motifs known as Walker A, Walker B and motif C located in a C-terminal NTP-binding domain (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1) (Gorbalenya, Koonin, and Wolf 1990; Koonin, 1993; Choudhury et al. 2006; Clerot and Bernardi 2006). The helicase domain found in Rep proteins of eukaryotic ssDNA viruses belongs to the helicase superfamily 3 (Gorbalenya, Koonin, and Wolf 1990; Koonin 1993). The conserved Walker A motif of genomoviruses is ‘GxxxxGKT’, with the exception of gemytondvirus which contains a highly derived variant of this motif (GPHRRRRT; Fig. 6). Previous studies have shown that during synthesis of progeny strands, Rep helicase activity unwinds the dsDNA intermediate in the 3′–5′ direction using nucleotide triphosphates as an energy source (Choudhury et al. 2006; Clerot and Bernardi 2006). Walker A motif forms part of the ‘P-loop’ structure in the NTP-binding domain that facilitates ATP recognition and binding with a conserved lysine residue (Desbiez et al. 1995; Timchenko et al. 1999; Choudhury et al. 2006; Clerot and Bernardi 2006; Rosario, Duffy, and Breitbart 2012; George et al. 2014). The Walker B of genomoviruses is predominantly ‘uuDDu’ (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1), whereas the motif C is ‘uxxN’ (u denotes hydrophobic residues and x any residue; Fig. 6, Supplementary Data S1). The hydrophobic residues in Walker B motif contribute to ATP binding and are essential for ATP hydrolysis, whereas the one in motif C (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1) interacts with the gamma phosphate of ATP and the nucleophilic water molecule via a conserved asparagine residue (Choudhury et al. 2006; George et al. 2014). Genomoviruses from different genera display distinct signatures within the nonanucleotide as well as conserved nuclease and helicase motifs, which are generally consistent with the proposed taxa (Fig. 6; Supplementary Data S1).

5. Concluding remarks

The Reps of genomoviruses are most closely related to those of geminiviruses and hence here we used a geminivirus taxonomy-informed approach to classify 121 genomoviruses into Rep sequence-based genera. Within the Genomoviridae family we establish eight new genera in addition to the one created previously (Krupovic et al. 2016). Detailed analysis of sequence motifs conserved within the genomoviral genomes further supports the validity of the proposed genera. We also define a species demarcation criterion of 78% genome-wide identity, that is sequences that share >78% pairwise identity with other genomovirus sequences belong to the same species and those that share <78% can be considered as new species. It is worth noting that despite the fact that geminiviruses have been studied for over two decades, the sequence diversity of all known geminiviruses is similar to that of the recently discovered genomoviruses (46 vs 47%, respectively). This observation strongly suggests that the extent of sequence diversity within this expansive virus group remains largely unexplored. Although the guidelines presented here are tailored for the classification of viral genomes in the family Genomoviridae, a similar sequence-based framework can be easily adapted for other virus clusters identified though metagenomics studies and lacking a pre-existing taxonomic framework, in particular for novel CRESS DNA viruses. We do acknowledge that this approach deviates from a previous norm that used a set of criteria including biological properties such as host range, pathology, vectors, etc. coupled with sequence data. However, given that the rate at which genome sequences of uncultivated viruses are being identified from various sources, we need to establish more robust classification approaches that can easily be implemented on the bases of sequence data alone. Indeed, this necessity is acknowledged by the ICTV which encourages submissions of taxonomic proposals for classification of viruses that are known exclusively from their genome sequences (Simmonds et al. 2017). This new tide in virus taxonomy is expected to catalyze the comprehension of the diversity, ecology and evolution of the global virome.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data are available at Virus Evolution online.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the taxonomic proposal 2016.001a-agF.U.v5.Genomoviridae which has been considered and approved by the Executive Committee (EC) of the ICTV. AV and MK are elected members of the ICTV EC. Conflict of interest: None declared. Click here for additional data file.
  88 in total

1.  Previously unknown and highly divergent ssDNA viruses populate the oceans.

Authors:  Jessica M Labonté; Curtis A Suttle
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 10.302

2.  Virophage control of antarctic algal host-virus dynamics.

Authors:  Sheree Yau; Federico M Lauro; Matthew Z DeMaere; Mark V Brown; Torsten Thomas; Mark J Raftery; Cynthia Andrews-Pfannkoch; Matthew Lewis; Jeffrey M Hoffman; John A Gibson; Ricardo Cavicchioli
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  A new superfamily of putative NTP-binding domains encoded by genomes of small DNA and RNA viruses.

Authors:  A E Gorbalenya; E V Koonin; Y I Wolf
Journal:  FEBS Lett       Date:  1990-03-12       Impact factor: 4.124

4.  FastTree 2--approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments.

Authors:  Morgan N Price; Paramvir S Dehal; Adam P Arkin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  High variability and rapid evolution of a nanovirus.

Authors:  Ioana Grigoras; Tatiana Timchenko; Ana Grande-Pérez; Lina Katul; Heinrich-Josef Vetten; Bruno Gronenborn
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 5.103

6.  Identification of a single-stranded DNA virus associated with citrus chlorotic dwarf disease, a new member in the family Geminiviridae.

Authors:  Giuliana Loconsole; Pasquale Saldarelli; Harshavardhan Doddapaneni; Vito Savino; Giovanni P Martelli; Maria Saponari
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 3.616

7.  Genomoviridae: a new family of widespread single-stranded DNA viruses.

Authors:  Mart Krupovic; Said A Ghabrial; Daohong Jiang; Arvind Varsani
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 2.574

8.  Insights into the evolutionary history of an emerging livestock pathogen: porcine circovirus 2.

Authors:  Cadhla Firth; Michael A Charleston; Siobain Duffy; Beth Shapiro; Edward C Holmes
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 5.103

9.  Fulfilling Koch's postulates for beet curly top Iran virus and proposal for consideration of new genus in the family Geminiviridae.

Authors:  Jahangir Heydarnejad; Nahid Keyvani; Sara Razavinejad; Hossain Massumi; Arvind Varsani
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 2.574

10.  Isolation of a Complete Circular Virus Genome Sequence from an Alaskan Black-Capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) Gastrointestinal Tract Sample.

Authors:  Zachary R Hanna; Charles Runckel; Jérôme Fuchs; Joseph L DeRisi; David P Mindell; Caroline Van Hemert; Colleen M Handel; John P Dumbacher
Journal:  Genome Announc       Date:  2015-09-24
View more
  43 in total

1.  Identification of an anellovirus and genomoviruses in ixodid ticks.

Authors:  Kara Waits; Marten J Edwards; Ilaria N Cobb; Rafaela S Fontenele; Arvind Varsani
Journal:  Virus Genes       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.332

2.  Family Genomoviridae: 2021 taxonomy update.

Authors:  Arvind Varsani; Mart Krupovic
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 2.574

3.  Cressdnaviricota: a Virus Phylum Unifying Seven Families of Rep-Encoding Viruses with Single-Stranded, Circular DNA Genomes.

Authors:  Mart Krupovic; Arvind Varsani; Darius Kazlauskas; Mya Breitbart; Eric Delwart; Karyna Rosario; Natalya Yutin; Yuri I Wolf; Balázs Harrach; F Murilo Zerbini; Valerian V Dolja; Jens H Kuhn; Eugene V Koonin
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 5.103

4.  Viral diversity in oral cavity from Sapajus nigritus by metagenomic analyses.

Authors:  Raissa Nunes Dos Santos; Fabricio Souza Campos; Fernando Finoketti; Anne Caroline Dos Santos; Aline Alves Scarpellini Campos; Paulo Guilherme Carniel Wagner; Paulo Michel Roehe; Helena Beatriz de Carvalho Ruthner Batista; Ana Claudia Franco
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 2.476

5.  Naryaviridae, Nenyaviridae, and Vilyaviridae: three new families of single-stranded DNA viruses in the phylum Cressdnaviricota.

Authors:  Mart Krupovic; Arvind Varsani
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 2.685

6.  Redondoviridae, a Family of Small, Circular DNA Viruses of the Human Oro-Respiratory Tract Associated with Periodontitis and Critical Illness.

Authors:  Arwa A Abbas; Louis J Taylor; Marisol I Dothard; Jacob S Leiby; Ayannah S Fitzgerald; Layla A Khatib; Ronald G Collman; Frederic D Bushman
Journal:  Cell Host Microbe       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 21.023

7.  Identification of the Viral Determinant of Hypovirulence and Host Range in Sclerotiniaceae of a Genomovirus Reconstructed from the Plant Metagenome.

Authors:  Chenchen Feng; Jiuhuan Feng; Ziyi Wang; Connor Pedersen; Xiuqing Wang; Huma Saleem; Leslie Domier; Shin-Yi Lee Marzano
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 5.103

8.  Circular Rep-Encoding Single-Stranded DNA Sequences in Milk from Water Buffaloes (Bubalus arnee f. bubalis).

Authors:  Marie-T König; Robert Fux; Ellen Link; Gerd Sutter; Erwin Märtlbauer; Andrea Didier
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 5.048

9.  Viral infections shared between water buffaloes and small ruminants in Switzerland.

Authors:  Julia Lechmann; Mathias Ackermann; Vanessa Kaiser; Claudia Bachofen
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 1.569

10.  Identification of diverse viruses in upper respiratory samples in dromedary camels from United Arab Emirates.

Authors:  Yan Li; Abdelmalik Ibrahim Khalafalla; Clinton R Paden; Mohammed F Yusof; Yassir M Eltahir; Zulaikha M Al Hammadi; Ying Tao; Krista Queen; Farida Al Hosani; Susan I Gerber; Aron J Hall; Salama Al Muhairi; Suxiang Tong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.