| Literature DB >> 31694175 |
Pontus Öhlund1, Juliette Hayer2, Hanna Lundén1, Jenny C Hesson3, Anne-Lie Blomström1.
Abstract
Metagenomic studies of mosquitoes have revealed that their virome is far more diverse and includes many more viruses than just the pathogenic arboviruses vectored by mosquitoes. In this study, the virome of 953 female mosquitoes collected in the summer of 2017, representing six mosquito species from two geographic locations in Mid-Eastern Sweden, were characterized. In addition, the near-complete genome of nine RNA viruses were characterized and phylogenetically analysed. These viruses showed association to the viral orders Bunyavirales, Picornavirales, Articulavirales, and Tymovirales, and to the realm Ribovira. Hence, through this study, we expand the knowledge of the virome composition of different mosquito species in Sweden. In addition, by providing viral reference genomes from wider geographic regions and different mosquito species, future in silico recognition and assembly of viral genomes in metagenomic datasets will be facilitated.Entities:
Keywords: insect-specific virus; metagenomics; mosquitoes; virome
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31694175 PMCID: PMC6893623 DOI: 10.3390/v11111027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Summary of the mosquito pools that were sequenced. Mix of sample location means that mosquitoes in this pool were collected both in Flen and Uppsala. Mix of sample time point means that mosquitoes in this pool were collected over several time points. Culex (Cx).
| Pool Name | Mosquito spp | Sample Location | Sample Time Point | Raw Reads | Diptera Reads (%) | Microbial Reads (%) | Viral Reads (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Mix | Mix | 2 985 629 | 7.6% | 27.55% | 8.76% |
| 2 |
| Mix | Mix | 4 713 173 | 42.65% | 56.21% | 4.86% |
| 3 |
| Mix | Mix | 8 590 873 | 1.43% | 13.78% | 1.44% |
| 4 |
| Mix | Mix | 1 842 681 | 5.42% | 27.65% | 12.47% |
| 5 |
| Flen | May and June | 1 427 446 | 5.35% | 24.75% | 11.00% |
| 6 |
| Flen | July | 5 877 722 | 3.3% | 13.23% | 5.43% |
| 7 |
| Flen | August | 2 269 961 | 5.11% | 19.73% | 8.48% |
| 8 |
| Uppsala | mix | 1 238 350 | 6.5% | 23.54% | 8.00% |
| 9 |
| Uppsala | June | 5 201 595 | 14.02% | 26.8% | 3.13% |
| 10 |
| Uppsala | July | 8 889 584 | 12.6% | 26.37% | 5.39% |
| 11 |
| Uppsala | August | 4 821 295 | 9.19% | 27.73% | 10.4% |
| 12 |
| Flen | Mix | 4 247 080 | 12.2% | 29.19% | 5.81% |
Figure 1Distribution of all mosquito species collected in Flen and Uppsala. Mosquito species are represented by different colors. Aedes (Ae), Coquillettidia (Cq).
Figure 2Annotation of viral reads in the different pools of mosquitoes. Each bar represents a mosquito pool—designated 1–12 and are described in Table 1. (A) Proportion of classified viral reads and unclassified RNA viral read. (B) Proportion of virus families of the classified viral reads.
Viral hits from the homology search of high-quality reads for each pool. Viral hits are shown as percentage of total reads for each mosquito pool, the different pools are described in Table 1. Viruses with less than 4000 mapped reads in any of the pools were aggregated under other viral reads.
| Abundance of Viruses (% of Total Reads) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cx. Pipiens | Cx. Torrentium | Ae. Communis | Ae. Annulipes | Ae. Cantans | Cq. Richardii | |||||||
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Wuhan Mosquito Virus 4 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Wuhan Mosquito Virus 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xinzhou Mosquito Virus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Zhee Mosquito virus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Culex Bunya-like virus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Yongsan bunyavirus 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xincheng anphevirus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anopheles darlingi virus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wuhan mosquito 2 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Whidbey virus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Yongsan tombus-like virus 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Yongsan picorna-like virus 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Yongsan sobemo-like virus 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Culex Iflavi-like virus 3 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kinkell virus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mosquito nodavirus MNV-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alphanodavirus HB-2007/CHN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Hubei noda-like virus 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
|
| 0 |
| Hubei virga-like virus 21 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hubei noda-like virus 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Hubei partiti-like virus 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hubei diptera virus 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Hubei diptera virus 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Hubei sobemo-like virus 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Hubei sobemo-like virus 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Hubei mosquito virus 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hubei tetragnatha maxillosa virus 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Wuhan insect virus 13 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wuhan fly virus 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
| Wenzhou sobemo-like virus 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sanxia water strider virus 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 |
| Shuangao insect virus 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Renna virus | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Culex mononega-like virus 2 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Culex mononega-like virus 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ae camptorhynchus negev-like virus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ae alboannulatus orthomyxo-like virus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
| 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| Ae camptorhynchus reo-like virus | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Salarivirus Mos8CM0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaq virus-like 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| uncultured virus | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Caninovirus sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3Phylogenetic analysis and genomic features of the positive-sense RNA viruses discovered in this study. The maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees show the positions of newly discovered viruses (solid black circles) in the context of representatives of their closest relatives. The genome structures of viruses discovered in this study are shown next to their corresponding phylogenies. (A) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the fifth ORF. (B) Phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the second ORF for both FTLV and HTLV. (C) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the aa sequence of the complete polyprotein. RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp).
Summary of the BLASTp analysis of each ORF of FTLV and HTLV.
| ORFs | FTLV Protein | HTLV Protein | aa Identity between FTLV and HTLV | aa Identity to YPLV1 (FTLV) | aa Identity to YPLV1 (HTLV) | Accession Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORF 1 | 411 aa | 379 aa | 46.88% | 43.98% | 70.59% | YP_009553260 |
| ORF 2 | 479 aa | 482 aa | 65.13% | 66.6% | 81.17% | YP_009553261 |
| ORF 3 | 412 aa | 409 aa | 62.77% | 64.63% | 87.5% | YP_009553263 |
Figure 4Phylogenetic analysis of the predicted and genomic features of the negative-sense RNA viruses discovered in this study. The maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees show the positions of newly discovered viruses (solid black circles) in the context of representatives of their closest relatives. The genome structures of the viruses discovered in this study are shown next to their corresponding phylogenies. (A) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the ORF of the PA segment. (B) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the ORF of the large segment.
Figure 5Phylogenetic analysis and genomic features of the unclassified RNA viruses discovered in this study. The maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees show the positions of newly discovered viruses (solid black circles) in the context of representatives of their closest relatives. The genome structures of viruses discovered in this study are shown next to their corresponding phylogenies. (A) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the sixth ORF. (B) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the first ORF. (C) The phylogenetic tree was generated using the translation of the first ORF.