| Literature DB >> 35062285 |
Hua Feng1, Joaquim Segalés2,3,4, Fangyu Wang1, Qianyue Jin1, Aiping Wang5, Gaiping Zhang1,5, Giovanni Franzo6.
Abstract
Porcine circoviruses (PCVs) are distributed in swine herds worldwide and represent a threat to the health of domestic pigs and the profits of the swine industry. Currently, four PCV species, including PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4, have been identified in China. Considering the ubiquitous characteristic of PCVs, the new emerged PCV-4 and the large scale of swine breeding in China, an overall analysis on codon usage bias for Chinese PCV sequences was performed by using the major proteins coding sequences (ORF1 and ORF2) to better understand the relationship of these viruses with their host. The data from genome nucleotide frequency composition and relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) analysis revealed an overrepresentation of AT pair and the existence of a certain codon usage bias in all PCVs. However, the values of an effective number of codons (ENC) revealed that the bias was of low magnitude. Principal component analysis, ENC-plot, parity rule two analysis and correlation analysis suggested that natural selection and mutation pressure were both involved in the shaping of the codon usage patterns of PCVs. However, a neutrality plot revealed a stronger effect of natural selection than mutation pressure on codon usage patterns. Good host adaptation was also shown by the codon adaptation index analysis for all these viruses. Interestingly, obtained data suggest that PCV-4 might be more adapted to its host compared to other PCVs. The present study obtained insights into the codon usage pattern of PCVs based on ORF1 and ORF2, which further helps the understanding the molecular evolution of these swine viruses.Entities:
Keywords: codon usage pattern; mutation pressure; natural selection; porcine circovirus; viral host adaptability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062285 PMCID: PMC8778832 DOI: 10.3390/v14010081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Composition analysis of the selected sequences of PCVs.
| Catalogs | PCV | PCV-1 | PCV-2 | PCV-3 | PCV-4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A% | 28.01 ± 0.27 | 27.47 ± 0.15 | 28.11 ± 0.17 | 27.67 ± 0.13 | 28.61 ± 0.11 |
| C% | 24.46 ± 1.64 | 25.58 ± 0.11 | 25.32 ± 0.19 | 21.36 ± 0.15 | 22.28 ± 0.12 |
| U% | 23.35 ± 0.32 | 23.61 ± 0.12 | 23.31 ± 0.17 | 23.61 ± 0.11 | 21.44 ± 0.09 |
| G% | 24.18 ± 1.72 | 23.34 ± 0.19 | 23.27 ± 0.14 | 27.37 ± 0.13 | 27.67 ± 0.07 |
| A3% | 21.84 ± 0.66 | 20.42 ± 0.40 | 21.95 ± 0.37 | 21.91 ± 0.37 | 17.95 ± 0.24 |
| C3% | 28.68 ± 2.83 | 29.99 ± 0.38 | 30.12 ± 0.36 | 23.17 ± 0.39 | 30.06 ± 0.19 |
| U3% | 26.98 ± 0.74 | 26.86 ± 0.26 | 26.94 ± 0.45 | 27.46 ± 0.32 | 22.55 ± 0.23 |
| G3% | 22.50 ± 2.77 | 22.73 ± 0.32 | 20.99 ± 0.34 | 27.45 ± 0.29 | 29.45 ± 0.18 |
| GC% | 48.65 ± 0.28 | 48.92 ± 0.20 | 48.59 ± 0.22 | 48.72 ± 0.17 | 49.95 ± 0.14 |
| GC1% | 50.15 ± 0.88 | 50.03 ± 0.37 | 50.59 ± 0.29 | 48.52 ± 0.19 | 50.67 ± 0.16 |
| GC2% | 44.61 ± 1.38 | 43.99 ± 0.25 | 44.07 ± 0.26 | 47.03 ± 0.25 | 39.65 ± 0.21 |
| GC3% | 51.18 ± 1.19 | 52.72 ± 0.44 | 51.10 ± 0.40 | 50.62 ± 0.45 | 59.51 ± 0.20 |
| GC12% | 47.38 ± 0.40 | 47.01 ± 0.23 | 47.33 ± 0.22 | 47.77 ± 0.14 | 45.16 ± 0.15 |
RSCU values of different PCV species and its host Sus scrofa.
| AA | Codons | PCV-1 | PCV-2 | PCV-3 | PCV-4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.87 | 0.93 |
|
| 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.92 |
|
| |
|
|
| 0.27 | 0.16 | 0.38 | 0.18 | 0.49 |
|
|
| 1.07 |
| 0.71 | 0.78 | |
|
| 1.25 | 1.25 | 0.59 | 0.87 | 0.81 | |
|
| 1.22 | 1.24 | 1.30 | 1.40 | 1.18 | |
|
| 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.39 | |
|
| 0.96 |
| 1.44 |
|
| |
|
|
| 0.96 |
|
| 1.12 | 1.06 |
|
|
| 1.01 | 0.14 |
|
| |
|
| 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.52 | |
|
|
| 1.14 | 0.82 |
| 0.41 | 0.73 |
|
| 0.46 | 0.81 | 0.44 | 1.10 | 0.98 | |
|
|
|
| 0.62 | 0.33 | 0.45 | |
|
| 1.12 | 1.18 | 0.73 |
|
| |
|
|
| 0.99 | 0.45 | 0.81 | 1.13 | 1.09 |
|
|
|
| 1.24 | 1.03 | 1.30 | |
|
| 0.42 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.37 | 0.87 | |
|
| 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.37 | |
|
| 0.80 | 1.28 | 0.62 | 1.26 | 0.91 | |
|
| 1.59 | 1.27 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 0.98 | 0.94 | 1.03 | 0.34 | 1.12 |
|
|
|
| 0.90 |
|
| |
|
| 1.02 | 1.12 |
| 1.36 | 1.06 | |
|
| 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.51 | |
|
|
| 1.35 | 1.24 | 1.13 |
| 0.94 |
|
|
|
|
| 1.28 |
| |
|
| 0.46 | 0.70 | 1.05 | 0.79 | 1.10 | |
|
| 0.52 | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.55 | |
|
|
| 1.57 |
|
| 1.00 | 1.02 |
|
|
| 0.82 | 0.92 |
|
| |
|
| 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.89 | |
|
| 0.42 | 0.48 | 1.20 | 0.90 | 0.45 | |
|
|
|
| 0.93 |
|
| 0.87 |
|
| 0.95 |
| 0.78 | 0.88 |
| |
|
|
| 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.19 | 0.90 | 0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 0.73 | 0.84 |
| 0.93 | 0.50 |
|
|
|
| 0.66 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 0.87 | 0.73 | 0.93 |
|
| 0.77 | 0.61 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.90 | 0.87 |
|
| 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.83 |
|
| |
|
|
| 1.00 |
|
| 0.90 | 0.92 |
|
|
| 0.94 | 0.78 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| 0.90 | 0.74 | 0.86 |
|
| 0.97 | 0.70 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| 0.87 |
|
| 0.91 |
|
| 0.88 |
| 0.86 | 0.54 |
| |
|
|
| 0.67 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 0.45 |
|
| 1.32 |
| 0.78 | 0.75 | 1.05 | |
|
| 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.00 | 0.67 | |
|
| 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.90 | 1.50 | 1.24 | |
|
|
| 1.83 |
|
| 1.29 | |
|
| 1.04 | 0.88 | 1.53 | 1.50 |
| |
|
|
| 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.56 | 0.63 |
|
|
|
| 0.57 | 1.15 |
| |
|
| 1.09 | 1.11 | 1.02 |
| 1.00 | |
|
| 0.91 | 0.92 |
| 0.96 | 1.01 |
The preferred codons for each PCV and Sus scrofa were marked in bold.
The preferred codons used by PCVs and the ones commonly used by PCVs and Sus scrofa.
| Preferred Codons Ended with G/C | Preferred Codons Ended with A/U | Preferred Codons Commonly Used by PCVs and | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCV1 | AUC, UCC, CCC, ACC, GCC, | GUA, AAA, AGA, GAA, UUU, UAU, AAU, UGU | AUC, CCC, ACC, GCC, CAC, |
| PCV2 | UCC, CCC, ACC, UAC, CAC, | GUA, AAA, GAA, UUU, AUU, GUU, AAU, GAU | CUG, CCC, ACC, UAC, CAC, |
| PCV3 | AGC, ACC, CAC, AAC, UUG, | CCA, CAA, AAA, AGA, UUU, AUU, GUU, GCU, UAU, GAU, UGU | AGC, ACC, CAC, AAC, GAG |
| PCV4 | UUC, AUC, AGC, CCC, GCC, | AGA, GGA, ACU, UAU, UGU | UUC, CUG, AUC, GUG, AGC, |
Figure 1PCA of all selected PCVs based on the ORF12 RSCU values. PCV strains are plotted based on the first two principal components (PC) values. Each point represented one PCV strain. PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4 were represented in blue, orange, grey and yellow, respectively.
Figure 2ENC-plot of ORF12s from different PCVs species. PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4 were represented in blue, orange, grey and yellow, respectively. The black curve represented the expected ENC values based on GC3 composition only.
Figure 3PR2 plot of ORF12s from different PCVs species. PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4 were represented in blue, orange, grey and yellow, respectively.
The correlation between the content of A3, T3, G3, C3, GC3, ENC and A%, T, G, C, GC, Gravy values, Aroma values for each PCV genotype. (r values were shown in the table).
| A | C | U | G | GC | Gravy | Aroma | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCV-1-ORF12 | |||||||
| A3 | 0.52 ** | 0.13 | −0.20 | −0.36 * | −0.25 | −0.22 | −0.11 |
| C3 | 0.13 | 0.74 ** | −0.29 | −0.33 * | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.37 * |
| U3 | −0.20 | −0.56 ** | 0.66 ** | 0.00 | −0.30 | −0.04 | 0.02 |
| G3 | −0.20 | −0.46 ** | 0.04 | 0.42 ** | 0.13 | 0.09 | −0.05 |
| GC3 | −0.17 | 0.34 * | −0.28 | 0.14 | 0.33 * | 0.19 | 0.19 |
| ENC | −0.30 * | −0.21 | 0.55 ** | −0.06 | −0.10 | 0.29 | 0.44 ** |
| PCV-2-ORF12 | |||||||
| A3 | 0.41 ** | 0.35 ** | −0.56 ** | −0.42 ** | 0.06 * | −0.20 ** | 0.31 ** |
| C3 | −0.13 ** | 0.77 ** | −0.56 ** | −0.26 ** | 0.50 ** | −0.13 ** | 0.27 ** |
| U3 | 0.15 ** | −0.74 ** | 0.87 ** | −0.08 ** | −0.73 ** | 0.18 ** | −0.32 ** |
| G3 | −0.31 ** | −0.37 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.68 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.08 ** | −0.12 ** |
| GC3 | −0.53 ** | 0.53 ** | −0.47 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.76 ** | −0.06 * | 0.18 ** |
| ENC | 0.24 ** | −0.41 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.03 | −0.38 ** | 0.29 ** | −0.58 ** |
| PCV-3-ORF12 | |||||||
| A3 | 0.78 ** | −0.20 ** | −0.07 | −0.48 ** | −0.55 ** | −0.28 ** | 0.07 |
| C3 | −0.28 ** | 0.78 ** | −0.55 ** | −0.18 ** | 0.61 ** | 0.12 * | −0.11 * |
| U3 | −0.10 | −0.59 ** | 0.82 ** | 0.10 | −0.48 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.11 * |
| G3 | −0.43 ** | −0.33 ** | 0.10 | 0.80 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.05 |
| GC3 | −0.57 ** | 0.57 ** | −0.48 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.79 ** | 0.15 ** | −0.11 * |
| ENC | 0.03 | 0.37 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.25 ** | 0.19 ** | −0.18 ** | −0.11 * |
| PCV-4-ORF12 | |||||||
| A3 | 0.60 ** | −0.18 | −0.35 | −0.21 | −0.30 | −0.05 | 0.15 |
| C3 | −0.46 * | 0.73 ** | −0.58 ** | 0.16 | 0.77 ** | 0.41 * | 0.05 |
| U3 | −0.08 | −0.47 * | 0.88 ** | −0.15 | −0.48 * | −0.03 | 0.39 * |
| G3 | 0.09 | −0.31 | 0.23 | 0.16 | −0.21 | −0.32 | −0.34 |
| GC3 | −0.50 ** | 0.56 ** | −0.43 * | 0.39 * | 0.71 ** | 0.17 | −0.41 * |
| ENC | 0.28 | −0.08 | 0.13 | −0.39 * | −0.22 | −0.25 | −0.42 * |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4Neutrality plot analysis (NA) of ORF12s from different PCVs species. (a), NA of overall PCVs; (b), NA of PCV-1; (c), NA of PCV-2; (d), NA of PCV-3; (e), NA of PCV-4. The overall PCVs, PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4 were represented in red, blue, orange, grey and yellow, respectively. The black dashed line represented the regression line for each PCV species; the regression equation is also reported.
Figure 5CAI values for each PCVs species. Different low-case letters represented statistically significant differences among different PCVs genotypes.