| Literature DB >> 29568922 |
Yaling Jing1, Tao Wang1, Zuyi Chen1, Xianping Ding1, Jianju Xu1, Xuemei Mu1, Man Cao1, Honghan Chen1.
Abstract
Globally, human papillomavirus (HPV)‑56 accounts for a small proportion of all high‑risk HPV types; however, HPV‑56 is detected at a higher rate in Asia, particularly in southwest China. The present study analyzed polymorphisms, intratypic variants, and genetic variability in the long control regions (LCR), E6, E7, and L1 of HPV‑56 (n=75). The LCRs, E6, E7 and L1 were sequenced using a polymerase chain reaction and the sequences were submitted to GenBank. Maximum‑likelihood trees were constructed using Kimura's two‑parameter model, followed by secondary structure analysis and protein damaging prediction. Additionally, in order to assess the effect of variations in the LCR on putative binding sites for cellular proteins, MATCH server was used. Finally, the selection pressures of the E6‑E7 and L1 genes were estimated. A total of 18 point substitutions, a 42‑bp deletion and a 19‑bp deletion of LCR were identified. Some of those mutations are embedded in the putative binding sites for transcription factors. 18 single nucleotide changes occurred in the E6‑E7 sequence, 11/18 were non‑synonymous substitutions and 7/18 were synonymous mutations. A total 24 single nucleotide changes were identified in the L1 sequence, 6/24 being non‑synonymous mutations and 18/24 synonymous mutations. Selective pressure analysis predicted that the majority of mutations of HPV‑56 E6, E7 and L1 were of positive selection. The phylogenetic tree demonstrated that the isolates distributed in two lineages. Data on the prevalence and genetic variation of HPV‑56 types in southwest China may aid future studies on viral molecular mechanisms and contribute to future investigations of diagnostic probes and therapeutic vaccines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29568922 PMCID: PMC5928666 DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2018.8743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Med Rep ISSN: 1791-2997 Impact factor: 2.952
Primers used for the molecular characterization of human papillomavirus-56 E6, E7 and L1 long control regions.
| Gene | Direction | Sequence 5′-3′ | Primer position | Product size, bp | Annealing Temperature, °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCR | Forward | TGTGTCATTATTGTGGCTTTTGTTTTGT | 7323 | 603 | 57 |
| Reverse | AGCTGCCTTTTATATGTACCGTTTTC | 81 | |||
| E6 | Forward | ATTGGGAGTGACCGAAAAGG | 26 | 803 | 58 |
| Reverse | ACAACACGCAGGTCCTCTTT | 828 | |||
| E7 | Forward | GCTACAGATGTCAAAGTCCG | 444 | 542 | 57.5 |
| Reverse | GCCTCTACTTCAAACCATCC | 985 | |||
| L1-1 | Forward | GCCCCTTTAGGTAATGTGTGG | 5418 | 943 | 59 |
| Reverse | CCACATAGAATCACCATAGGCAT | 6360 | |||
| L1-2 | Forward | ATGATAGACACAGGATTTGGCG | 6217 | 948 | 58 |
| Reverse | ATACAACACACAAACACAGTTACAC | 7164 |
Figure 1.Detection rates of the 23 types of HPV in the 7,707 women sampled. HPV, human papillomavirus.
Nucleotide sequence variations at long control regions-E6-E7 of 23 HPV-56 isolates.
(−), conserved nucleotides with respect to the reference sequence; (.), a nucleotide deletion. Letters indicate variation in position. D1, deletion of 19 bp (7,509–7,527) among HPV-56 isolates; D2, deletion of 42 bp (7,492–7,533). S, Sheet; H, Helix; HPV, human papillomavirus.
Figure 2.Predicted of HPV-56 E7 Q77H/Y substitution the pathogenicity by PolyPhen-2. Pathogenicity of (A) HPV-56 E7 Q77H and (B) HPV-56 E7 Q77Y substitution. HPV, human papillomavirus.
Figure 3.Maximum-likelihood trees of LCR-E6-E7 of HPV-56. The maximum-likelihood tree of HPV-56 variants based on LCR-E6-E7 combined sequences. Sequences from the present study are labeled in black, the remaining are standard sequences used for alignment. The numbers above the branches indicate the bootstrap values >70%.
Nucleotide sequence variations at L1 of 16 HPV-56 isolates.
| L1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | ||
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 2 | ||
| Isolates | 9 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 0 | n, 75 |
| Ref | C | G | A | A | A | A | G | A | A | G | A | A | A | G | G | T | T | A | T | C | A | A | G | A | |
| 56HL01 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | A | T | – | G | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 14 |
| 56HL02 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | A | T | – | G | – | – | – | – | C | – | – | 1 |
| 56HL03 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | T | – | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | – | – | – | – | C | – | – | 1 |
| 56HL04 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | – | – | – | – | C | – | – | 4 |
| 56HL05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | – | – | – | – | T | – | – | 2 |
| 56HL06 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| 56HL07 | T | – | – | C | – | – | A | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | T | – | – | G | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| 56HL08 | T | – | – | C | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | T | – | – | G | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| 56HL09 | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4 |
| 56HL10 | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| 56HL11 | – | A | G | – | – | G | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | A | – | 1 |
| 56HL12 | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | – | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | A | G | 28 |
| 56HL13 | – | – | G | – | – | G | – | – | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | A | G | 1 |
| 56HL14 | – | – | – | – | G | G | – | – | – | A | – | G | G | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | C | – | A | G | 1 |
| 56HL15 | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | G | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | – | T | – | – | A | G | 11 |
| 56HL16 | – | – | – | – | – | G | – | G | – | A | – | G | – | – | T | G | – | – | C | T | – | – | A | G | 1 |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||||
| Second structure | – | S | S | – | S | S | S | S | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | S | S | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
(−), conserved nucleotides with respect to the reference sequence; (.), a nucleotide deletion. Letters indicate variation in position. S, Sheet; H, Helix. HPV, human papillomavirus.
Figure 4.Predicted of HPV-56 L1 K116M and N126D substitutions the pathogenicity by PolyPhen-2. The pathogenicity of (A) HPV-56 L1 K116M and (B) HPV-56 L1 N126D substitution. HPV, human papillomavirus.
Figure 5.Maximum-likelihood trees of L1 of HPV-56. The maximum-likelihood tree of HPV-56 variants based on L1 sequences. Sequences from the present study are labeled in black, the remaining are standard sequences used for alignment. The numbers above the branches indicate the bootstrap values >70%.
Site-specific tests for positive selection on human papillomavirus-56 E6-E7.
| Models | InL | Parameters estimates | 2Δl | E6 positively selected sites | E7 positively selected sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M7 | −1340.45 | p=0.005; q=0.05 | n/a | NA | NA |
| M8 | −1318.69 | p0=0.9; p=2.24; q=99; (p1=0.05); ω=15.63 | 43.52; P<0.01 | 14S[ | 10D[ |
lnL, log-likelihood difference between the two models; 2Δl, twice the log-likelihood difference between the two models; the positively selected sites were identified with posterior probability ≥0.9 using empirical Bayes method.
Posterior probability ≥0.95
Posterior probability ≥0.99; NA, not allowed.
Site-specific tests for positive selection on human papillomavirus-56 L1.
| Models | InL | Estimates of parameters | 2Δl | L1 positively selected sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M7 | −2542.50 | p=0.005; q=0.049 | n/a | NA |
| M8 | −2531.74 | p0=0.986; p=0.005; q=4.034; (p1=0.014); ω=10.537 | 21.51; P<0.01 | 510K[ |
lnL, log-likelihood difference between the two models; 2Δl, twice the log-likelihood difference between the two models; the positively selected sites were identified with posterior probability ≥0.9 using empirical Bayes method.
Posterior probability ≥0.99; NA, not allowed.