Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Virology Journal 1/2011

Open Access 01.12.2011 | Research

Bioinformatics analysis of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus genome

verfasst von: Xiao-ting Tian, Bao-yu Li, Liang Zhang, Wen-qiang Jiao, Ji-xing Liu

Erschienen in: Virology Journal | Ausgabe 1/2011

Abstract

Background

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV), as the pathogeny of Rabbit haemorrhagic disease, can cause a highly infectious and often fatal disease only affecting wild and domestic rabbits. Recent researches revealed that it, as one number of the Caliciviridae, has some specialties in its genome, its reproduction and so on.

Results

In this report, we firstly analyzed its genome and two open reading frameworks (ORFs) from this aspect of codon usage bias. Our researches indicated that mutation pressure rather than natural is the most important determinant in RHDV with high codon bias, and the codon usage bias is nearly contrary between ORF1 and ORF2, which is maybe one of factors regulating the expression of VP60 (encoding by ORF1) and VP10 (encoding by ORF2). Furthermore, negative selective constraints on the RHDV whole genome implied that VP10 played an important role in RHDV lifecycle.

Conclusions

We conjectured that VP10 might be beneficial for the replication, release or both of virus by inducing infected cell apoptosis initiate by RHDV. According to the results of the principal component analysis for ORF2 of RSCU, we firstly separated 30 RHDV into two genotypes, and the ENC values indicated ORF1 and ORF2 were independent among the evolution of RHDV.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1743-422X-8-494) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Xiao-ting Tian, Bao-yu Li contributed equally to this work.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

XTT and BYL contributed equally to the original draft of the manuscript, and approved the final version. ZL and WQJ contributed to conception and design of the manuscript, and revised the manuscript. LJX is the corresponding author. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

1. Background

Synonymous codons are not used randomly [1]. The variation of codon usage among ORFs in different organisms is accounted by mutational pressure and translational selection as two main factors [2, 3]. Levels and causes of codon usage bias are available to understand viral evolution and the interplay between viruses and the immune response [4]. Thus, many organisms such as bacteria, yeast, Drosophila, and mammals, have been studied in great detail up on codon usage bias and nucleotide composition [5]. However, same researches in viruses, especially in animal viruses, have been less studied. It has been observed that codon usage bias in human RNA viruses is related to mutational pressure, G+C content, the segmented nature of the genome and the route of transmission of the virus [6]. For some vertebrate DNA viruses, genome-wide mutational pressure is regarded as the main determinant of codon usage rather than natural selection for specific coding triplets [4]. Analysis of the bovine papillomavirus type 1 (BPV1) late genes has revealed a relationship between codon usage and tRNA availability [7]. In the mammalian papillomaviruses, it has been proposed that differences from the average codon usage frequencies in the host genome strongly influence both viral replication and gene expression [8]. Codon usage may play a key role in regulating latent versus productive infection in Epstein-Barr virus [9]. Recently, it was reported that codon usage is an important driving force in the evolution of astroviruses and small DNA viruses [10, 11]. Clearly, studies of synonymous codon usage in viruses can reveal much about the molecular evolution of viruses or individual genes. Such information would be relevant in understanding the regulation of viral gene expression.
Up to now, little codon usage analysis has been performed on Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV), which is the pathogen causing Rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD), also known as rabbit calicivirus disease (RCD) or viral haemorrhagic disease (VHD), a highly infectious and often fatal disease that affects wild and domestic rabbits. Although the virus infects only rabbits, RHD continues to cause serious problems in different parts of the world. RHDV is a single positive stranded RNA virus without envelope, which contains two open reading frames (ORFs) separately encoding a predicted polyprotein and a minor structural protein named VP10 [12]. After the hydrolysis of self-coding 3C-like cysteinase, the polyprotein was finally hydrolyzed into 8 cleavage products including 7 nonstructural proteins and 1 structural protein named as VP60 [13, 14]. Studies on the phylogenetic relationship of RHDVs showed only one serotype had been isolated, and no genotyping for RHDV was reported. It reported that the VP10 was translated with an efficiency of 20% of the preceding ORF1 [15]. In order to better understand the characteristics of the RHDV genome and to reveal more information about the viral genome, we have analyzed the codon usage and dinucleotide composition. In this report, we sought to address the following issues concerning codon usage in RHDV: (i) the extent and causes of codon bias in RHDV; (ii) A possible genotyping of RHDV; (iii) Codon usage bias as a factor reducing the expression of VP10 and (iiii) the evolution of the ORFs.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Sequences

The 30 available complete RNA sequences of RHDV were obtained from GenBank randomly in January 2011. The serial number (SN), collection dates, isolated areas and GenBank accession numbers are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Information of RHDV genomes
SN
Strain
Isolation
Date
Accession No.
1
UT-01
USA:Utah
2001
EU003582.1
2
NY-01
USA: New York
2001
EU003581.1
3
Italy-90
Italy
1990
EU003579.1
4
IN-05
USA: Indiana
2005
EU003578.1
5
NJ-2009
China: Nanjing
2009
HM623309.1
6
Iowa2000
USA: Iowa
2000
AF258618.2
7
pJG-RHDV-DD06
Ramsay Island
2007
EF363035.1
8
Bahrain
Bahrain
2006
DQ189077.1
9
CD/China
Changchun, China
2004
AY523410.1
10
RHDV-V351
Czech
1996
U54983.1
11
RHDV-Hokkaido
Japan
2002
AB300693.2
12
RHDV-FRG
Germany
1991
NC_001543.1
13
Meiningen
Germany
2007
EF558577.1
14
Jena
Germany
2007
EF558576.1
15
Hartmannsdorf
Germany
2007
EF558586.1
16
Rossi
Germany
2007
EF558584.1
17
Triptis
Germany
2007
EF558583.1
18
Dachswald
Germany
2007
EF558582.1
19
Erfurt
Germany
2007
EF558581.1
20
NZ61
New Zealand
2007
EF558580.1
21
NZ54
New Zealand
2007
EF558579.1
22
Eisenhuttenstadt
Germany
2007
EF558578.1
23
Ascot
United Kingdom
2007
EF558575.1
24
Wika
Germany
2007
EF558574.1
25
Frankfurt5
Germany
2007
EF558573.1
26
Frankfurt12
Germany
2007
EF558572.1
27
WHNRH
China
2005
DQ280493.1
28
BS89
Italy
1995
X87607.1
29
RHDV-SD
France
1993
Z29514.1
30
M67473.1
Germany
1991
M67473.1

2.2 The relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) in RHDV

To investigate the characteristics of synonymous codon usage without the influence of amino acid composition, RSCU values of each codon in a ORF of RHDV were calculated according to previous reports (2 Sharp, Tuohy et al. 1986) as the followed formula:
RSCU = g i j j n i g i j n i
Where gij is the observed number of the i th codon for j th amino acid which has ni type of synonymous codons. The codons with RSCU value higher than 1.0 have positive codon usage bias, while codons with value lower than 1.0 has relative negative codon usage bias. As RSCU values of some codons are nearly equal to 1.0, it means that these codons are chosen equally and randomly.

2.3 The content of each nucleotides and G+C at the synonymous third codon position (GC3s)

The index GC3s means the fraction of the nucleotides G+C at the synonymous third codon position, excluding Met, Trp, and the termination codons.

2.4 The effective number of codons (ENC)

The ENC, as the best estimator of absolute synonymous codon usage bias [16], was calculated for the quantification of the codon usage bias of each ORF [17]. The predicted values of ENC were calculated as
ENC = 2 + s + 2 9 s 2 + ( 1 - s 2 )
where s represents the given (G+C)3% value. The values of ENC can also be obtained by EMBOSS CHIPS program [18].

2.5 Dn and ds of two ORFs

Analyses were conducted with the Nei-Gojobori model [19], involving 30 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. The values of dn, ds and ω (dn/ds) were calculated in MEGA4.0 [20].

2.6 Correspondence analysis (COA)

Multivariate statistical analysis can be used to explore the relationships between variables and samples. In this study, correspondence analysis was used to investigate the major trend in codon usage variation among ORFs. In this study, the complete coding region of each ORF was represented as a 59 dimensional vector, and each dimension corresponds to the RSCU value of one sense codon (excluding Met, Trp, and the termination codons) [21].

2.7 Correlation analysis

Correlation analysis was used to identify the relationship between nucleotide composition and synonymous codon usage pattern [22]. This analysis was implemented based on the Spearman's rank correlation analysis way.
All statistical processes were carried out by with statistical software SPSS 17.0 for windows.

3. Results

3.1 Measures of relative synonymous codon usage

The values of nucleotide contents in complete coding region of all 30 RHDV genomes were analyzed and listed in Table 2 and Table 3. Evidently, (C+G)% content of the ORF1 fluctuated from 50.889 to 51.557 with a mean value of 51.14557, and (C+G)% content of the ORF2 were ranged from 35.593 to 40.113 with a mean value of 37.6624, which were indicating that nucleotides A and U were the major elements of ORF2 against ORF1. Comparing the values of A3%, U3%, C3% and G3%, it is clear that C3% was distinctly high and A3% was the lowest of all in ORF1 of RHDV, while U3% was distinctly high and C3% was the lowest of all in ORF2 of RHDV. The (C3+G3) % in ORF1 fluctuated from 57.014 to 58.977 with a mean value of 57.68287 and (C3+G3)% were range from 31.356 to 39.831 with a mean value of 34.8337. And the ENC values of ORF1 fluctuated from 54.192 to 55.491 with a mean value of 54.95 and ENC values of ORF2 displayed a far-ranging distribution from 39.771 to 51.964 with a mean value of 44.46. The ENC values of ORF1 were a little high indicating that there is a particular extent of codon preference in ORF1, but the codon usage is relatively randomly selected in ORF2 on the base of ENC values. The details of the overall relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) values of 59 codons for each ORF in 30 RHDV genomes were listed in Table 4. Most preferentially used codons in ORF1 were C-ended or G-ended codons except Ala, Pro and Ser, however, A-ended or G-ended codons were preferred as the content of ORF2.
Table 2
Identified nucleotide contents in complete coding region (length > 250 bps) in the ORF1 of RHDV (30 isolates) genome
SN
A%
A3%
U%
U3%
C%
C3%
G%
G3%
(C+G)%
(C3+G3)%
ENC
1
25.302
18.252
23.340
23.497
25.544
33.348
25.814
24.904
51.358
58.252
54.786
2
25.387
18.294
23.738
24.691
25.146
32.281
25.729
24.733
51.386
57.014
55.201
3
25.515
18.678
23.298
23.795
25.657
33.220
25.529
24.307
51.186
57.527
55.05
4
25.899
19.488
22.758
21.876
26.141
35.053
25.203
23.582
51.344
58.635
54.68
5
25.515
18.593
23.554
24.136
25.373
32.878
25.558
24.392
50.931
57.270
55.491
6
25.458
18.294
23.554
24.222
25.444
32.921
25.544
24.563
50.988
57.484
55.268
7
25.359
18.806
23.454
23.667
25.487
33.262
25.700
24.264
51.187
57.526
54.723
8
25.402
18.721
23.412
23.625
25.544
33.305
25.643
24.350
51.187
57.655
55.031
9
25.615
19.062
23.383
23.625
25.544
33.433
25.458
23.881
51.002
57.314
54.906
10
25.430
18.593
23.383
23.966
25.629
33.006
25.558
24.435
51.187
57.441
55.439
11
25.288
17.910
23.596
24.435
25.402
32.751
25.714
24.904
51.116
57.665
54.984
12
25.529
18.635
23.412
23.838
25.515
33.092
25.544
24.435
51.059
57.527
55.203
13
25.387
18.380
23.611
23.966
25.316
33.006
25.686
24.648
51.002
57.654
54.681
14
25.274
18.124
23.426
23.582
25.544
33.433
25.757
24.861
51.301
58.294
54.548
15
25.203
18.166
23.724
24.691
25.188
32.239
25.885
24.904
51.073
57.143
55.429
16
25.487
18.721
23.326
23.326
25.601
33.603
25.586
24.350
51.187
57.953
55.148
17
25.444
18.507
23.369
23.582
25.572
33.433
25.615
24.478
51.187
57.911
55.27
18
25.572
18.806
23.539
24.179
25.416
32.836
25.473
24.179
50.889
57.015
55.417
19
25.487
18.507
23.582
24.136
25.359
32.964
25.572
24.392
50.931
57.356
55.384
20
25.558
18.806
23.426
23.966
25.473
32.878
25.544
24.350
51.017
57.228
55.165
21
25.544
18.721
23.426
24.009
25.529
33.006
25.501
24.264
51.030
57.270
55.156
22
25.160
17.783
23.312
23.326
25.729
33.689
25.800
25.203
51.529
58.892
54.682
23
25.487
18.806
23.511
23.710
25.529
33.433
25.473
24.051
51.002
57.487
54.192
24
25.387
18.593
23.497
23.667
25.572
33.348
25.544
24.392
51.116
57.740
54.213
25
25.330
18.635
23.483
23.582
25.615
33.433
25.572
24.350
51.187
57.783
54.238
26
25.387
18.593
23.511
23.710
25.572
33.390
25.529
24.307
51.101
57.697
54.285
27
25.330
18.209
23.511
24.264
25.487
32.964
25.672
24.563
51.159
57.527
55.267
28
25.448
18.643
23.443
23.635
25.576
33.362
25.533
24.360
51.109
57.722
54.614
29
25.174
17.868
23.269
23.156
25.686
33.817
25.871
25.160
51.557
58.977
54.842
30
25.529
18.635
23.412
23.838
25.515
33.092
25.544
24.435
51.059
57.527
55.203
Table 3
Identified nucleotide contents in complete coding region (length > 250 bps) in the ORF2 of RHDV (30 isolates) genome
SN
A%
A3%
U%
U3%
C%
C3%
G%
G3%
(C+G)%
(C3+G3)%
ENC
1
29.944
17.797
30.791
44.068
13.842
16.102
25.424
22.034
39.266
38.136
49.377
2
29.944
18.644
30.226
43.220
14.407
16.949
25.424
21.186
39.831
38.135
48.182
3
31.356
20.339
31.638
46.610
12.994
13.559
24.011
19.492
37.005
33.051
44.567
4
30.508
18.644
30.791
44.915
13.842
15.254
24.859
21.186
38.701
36.440
46.686
5
29.944
17.797
31.921
46.610
12.712
13.559
25.424
22.034
38.136
35.593
41.215
6
30.226
16.949
30.226
43.220
14.407
16.949
25.141
22.881
39.548
39.830
51.964
7
31.356
19.492
30.791
45.763
14.124
15.254
23.729
19.492
37.853
34.764
45.757
8
30.226
16.949
29.661
43.220
15.254
17.797
24.859
22.034
40.113
39.831
47.242
9
30.508
18.644
31.356
45.763
13.277
14.407
24.859
21.186
38.136
35.593
43.017
10
31.356
20.339
31.638
46.610
12.994
13.559
24.011
19.492
37.005
33.051
44.576
11
29.782
17.518
33.898
48.175
12.107
13.139
24.213
21.168
36.320
34.307
43.088
12
31.638
21.186
31.073
45.763
12.994
13.559
24.294
19.492
37.288
33.051
44.997
13
31.073
18.644
31.638
46.610
13.277
14.407
24.011
20.339
37.288
34.746
43.213
14
31.638
19.492
31.921
47.458
12.994
13.559
23.446
19.492
36.440
33.051
47.214
15
31.921
20.339
31.921
46.610
12.712
13.559
23.446
19.492
36.158
33.051
41.964
16
30.226
18.644
30.508
43.220
14.124
16.949
25.141
21.186
39.265
38.135
47.603
17
30.508
19.492
30.508
43.220
13.559
15.254
25.424
22.034
38.983
37.288
47.615
18
29.096
16.102
31.356
45.763
13.277
14.407
26.271
23.729
39.548
38.136
44.343
19
30.226
19.492
31.073
44.915
13.559
15.254
25.141
20.339
38.700
35.593
46.768
20
31.638
19.492
32.768
49.153
11.864
11.017
23.729
20.339
35.593
31.356
39.771
21
31.638
19.492
32.768
49.153
11.864
11.017
23.729
20.339
35.593
31.356
39.771
22
31.073
19.492
31.356
45.763
12.994
13.559
24.576
21.186
37.570
34.745
43.282
23
31.356
19.492
31.921
47.458
12.994
13.559
23.729
19.492
36.723
33.051
42.633
24
31.638
20.339
31.921
47.458
12.994
13.559
23.446
18.644
36.440
32.203
42.157
25
31.638
20.339
32.203
48.305
12.712
12.712
23.446
18.644
36.185
31.356
40.006
26
31.638
20.339
32.203
48.305
12.712
12.712
23.446
18.644
36.185
31.356
40.006
27
30.226
17.797
31.073
44.915
13.559
15.254
25.141
22.034
38.700
37.288
42.799
28
31.356
18.644
31.356
45.763
13.559
15.254
23.729
20.339
37.288
35.593
45.413
29
31.638
21.186
31.638
46.610
12.712
12.712
24.011
19.492
36.723
32.204
43.618
30
31.638
21.186
31.073
45.763
12.994
13.559
24.294
19.492
37.288
32.721
44.997
Table 4
Synonymous codon usage of the whole coding sequence in RHDV
AAa
Codon
RSCU in ORF1
RSCU in ORF2
AAa
Codon
RSCU in ORF1
RSCU in ORF2
Ala
GCA
1.238761
0.877698
Leu
CUA
0.582651
0.410596
 
GCC
1.224431
1.165468
 
CUC
1.349825
0.397351
 
GCG
0.567437
0.014388
 
CUG
1.188367
0.900662
 
GCU
0.969371
1.942446
 
CUU
1.107137
0.821192
Arg
AGA
1.266604
1.481013
 
UUA
0.498412
1.350993
 
AGG
2.026193
3.341772
 
UUG
1.273609
2.119205
 
CGA
0.303087
0
Lys
AAA
0.699282
0.837209
 
CGC
0.991581
1.177215
 
AAG
1.300718
1.162791
 
CGG
0.445276
0
Phe
UUC
0.909962
0.360902
 
CGU
0.967259
0
 
UUU
1.090038
1.639098
Asn
AAC
1.562517
0.140845
Pro
CCA
1.370342
2
 
AAU
0.437483
1.859155
 
CCC
1.204832
0.451613
Asp
GAC
1.576108
0.909091
 
CCG
0.45541
0
 
GAU
0.423892
1.090909
 
CCU
0.969417
1.548387
Cys
UGC
1.034803
0
Ser
AGC
0.969041
1.567416
 
UGU
0.965197
0
 
AGU
1.104135
3.370787
Gln
CAA
0.798416
1.651613
 
UCA
1.437974
0
 
CAG
1.201584
0.348387
 
UCC
1.226239
0.522472
Glu
GAA
0.843523
0.8
 
UCG
0.558562
0
 
GAG
1.156477
1.2
 
UCU
0.704048
0.539326
Gly
GGA
0.669081
0.797508
Ile
AUA
0.574538
0
 
GGC
1.262976
0.984424
 
AUC
1.247451
0.525
 
GGG
0.944991
0.398754
 
AUU
1.17801
2.475
 
GGU
1.122952
1.819315
Tyr
UAC
1.285714
0.086022
His
CAC
1.412429
0
 
UAU
0.714286
1.913978
 
CAU
0.587571
2
Val
GUA
0.316211
0.763077
Thr
ACA
1.212516
0.129032
 
GUC
1.050408
0.258462
 
ACC
1.379635
2
 
GUG
1.163066
0.615385
 
ACG
0.496292
0
 
GUU
1.470315
2.363077
 
ACU
0.911557
1.870968
    
In addition, the dn, ds and ω(dN/dS) values of ORF1 were separately 0.014, 0.338 and 0.041, and the values of ORF2 were 0.034, 0.103 and 0.034, respectively. The ω values of two ORFs in RHDV genome are generally low, indicating that the RHDV whole genome is subject to relatively strong selective constraints.

3.2 Correspondence analysis

COA was used to investigate the major trend in codon usage variation between two ORFs of all 30 RHDV selected for this study. After COA for RHDV Genome, one major trend in the first axis (f'1) which accounted for 42.967% of the total variation, and another major trend in the second axis (f'2) which accounted for 3.632% of the total variation. The coordinate of the complete coding region of each ORF was plotted in Figure 1 defining by the first and second principal axes. It is clear that coordinate of each ORF is relatively isolated. Interestingly, we found that relatively isolated spots from ORF2 tend to cluster into two groups: the ordinate value of one group (marked as Group 1) is positive value and the other one (marked as Group 2) is negative value. Interestingly, all of those strains isolated before 2000 belonged to Group 2.

3.3 Correlation analysis

To estimate whether the evolution of RHDV genome on codon usage was regulated by mutation pressure or natural selection, the A%, U%, C%, G% and (C+G)% were compared with A3%, U3%, C3%, G3% and (C3+G3)%, respectively (Table 5). There is a complex correlation among nucleotide compositions. In detail, A3%, U3%, C3% and G3% have a significant negative correlation with G%, C%, U% and A% and positive correlation with A%, U%, C% and G%, respectively. It suggests that nucleotide constraint may influence synonymous codon usage patterns. However, A3% has non-correlation with U% and C%, and U3% has non-correlation with A% and G%, respectively, which haven't indicated any peculiarity about synonymous codon usage. Furthermore, C3% and G3% have non-correlation with A%, G% and U%, C%, respectively, indicating these data don't reflect the true feature of synonymous codon usage as well. Therefore, linear regression analysis was implemented to analyze the correlation between synonymous codon usage bias and nucleotide compositions. Details of correlation analysis between the first two principle axes (f'1 and f'2) of each RHDV genome in COA and nucleotide contents were listed in Table 6. In surprise, only f2 values are closely related to base nucleotide A and G content on the third codon position only, suggesting that nucleotide A and G is a factor influencing the synonymous codon usage pattern of RHDV genome. However, f'1 value has non-correlation with base nucleotide contents on the third codon position; it is observably suggest that codon usage patterns in RHDV were probably influenced by other factors, such as the second structure of viral genome and limits of host. In spite of that, compositional constraint is a factor shaping the pattern of synonymous codon usage in RHDV genome.
Table 5
Summary of correlation analysis between the A, U, C, G contents and A3, U3, C3, G3 contents in all selected samples
 
A3%
U3%
C3%
G3%
(C3+G3)%
A%
r = 0.869**
r = -0.340NS
r = -0.358NS
r = -0.865**
r = -0.266**
U%
r = -0.436NS
r = 0.921**
r = -0.902**
r = -0.366NS
r = -0.652**
C%
r = 0.376NS
r = -0.919**
r = 0.932**
r = -0.352NS
r = 0.692**
G%
r = -0.860**
r = -0.377NS
r = -0.437NS
r = 0.910**
r = 0.220**
(C+G)%
r = -0.331 NS
r = -0.649**
r = 0.636**
r = 0.399*
r = 0.915**
ar value in this table is calculated in each correlation analysis.
NS means non-significant (p > 0.05).
* means 0.01 < p < 0.05
**means p < 0.01
Table 6
Summary of correlation analysis between the f1, f2 contents and A3, U3, C3, G3, C3+G3 contents in all selected samples
Base compositions
f1'(42.967%)
f2'(3.632%)
A3%
r = -0.051NS
r = -0.740**
U3%
r = 0.243NS
r = 0.314NS
C3%
r = -0.291NS
r = -0.298NS
G3%
r = 0.108NS
r = 0.723**
(C3+G3)%
r = -0.216NS
r = 0.205NS
ar value in this table is calculated in each correlation analysis.
NS means non-significant.
* means 0.01 < p < 0.05
**means p < 0.01

4. Discussion

There have been more and more features that are unique to RHDV within the family Caliciviridae, including its single host tropism, its genome and its VP10 as a structural protein with unknown function. After we analyzed synonymous codon usage in RHDV (Table 2), we obtained several conclusions and conjectures as followed.

4.1 Mutational bias as a main factor leading to synonymous codon usage variation

ENC-plot, as a general strategy, was utilized to investigate patterns of synonymous codon usage. The ENC-plots of ORFs constrained only by a C3+G3 composition will lie on or just below the curve of the predicted values [18]. ENC values of RHDV genomes were plotted against its corresponding (C3+G3) %. All of the spots lie below the curve of the predicted values, as shown in Figure 2, suggesting that the codon usage bias in all these 30 RHDV genomes is principally influenced by the mutational bias.

4.2 A proof for codon usage bias as a factor reducing the expression of VP10

As we know, the efficiency of gene expression is influenced by regulator sequences or elements and codon usage bias. It reported that the RNA sequence of the 3-terminal 84 nucleotides of ORF1were found to be crucial for VP10 expression instead of the encoded peptide. VP10 coding by ORF2 has been reported as a low expressive structural protein against VP60 coding by ORF1 [5]. And its efficiency of translation is only 20% of VP60. According to results showed by Table 4, it revealed the differences in codon usage patterns of two ORFs, which is a possible factor reducing the expression of VP10.

4.3 Negative selective constraints on the RHDV whole genome

Although VP10 encoded by ORF2, as a minor structural protein with unknown functions, has been described by LIU as a nonessential protein for virus infectivity, the ω value of ORF2 suggests VP10 plays an important role in the certain stage of whole RHDV lifecycle. After combining with low expression and ω value of VP10, we conjectured that VP10 might be beneficial for the replication, release or both of virus by inducing infected cell apoptosis initiate by RHDV. This mechanism has been confirmed in various positive-chain RNA viruses, including coxsackievirus, dengue virus, equine arterivirus, foot-and-mouth disease virus, hepatitis C virus, poliovirus, rhinovirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome [2329], although the details remain elusive.

4.4 Independent evolution of ORF1 and ORF2

As preceding description, ENC reflects the evolution of codon usage variation and nucleotide composition to some degree. After the correlation analysis of ENC values between ORF1 and ORF2 (Table 7), the related coefficient of ENC values of two ORFs is 0.230, and p value is 0.222 more than 0.05. These data revealed that no correlation existed in ENC values of two ORFs, indicating that codon usage patterns and evolution of two ORFs are separated each other. Further, this information maybe helps us well understand why RSCU and ENC between two ORFs are quite different.
Table 7
Summary of correlation analysis between ENC value of ORF1 and ENC value of ORF2
 
ENC value of ORF1
ENC value of ORF2
ENC value of ORF1
r = 1, p = 0
r = 0.230, p = 0.222 > 0.05
ENC value of ORF2
r = 0.230, p = 0.222 > 0.05
r = 1, p = 0

4.5 A possible genotyping basis

Interestingly, we found that relatively isolated spots from ORF2 tend to cluster into two groups: the ordinate value of one group (marked as Group 1) is positive value and the other one (marked as Group 2) is negative value. And all of those strains isolated before 2000 belonged to Group 2, including Italy-90, RHDV-V351, RHDV-FRG, BS89, RHDV-SD and M67473.1. Although RHDV has been reported as only one type, this may be a reference on dividing into two genotypes.

5. Conclusion

In this report, we firstly analyzed its genome and two open reading frameworks (ORFs) from this aspect of codon usage bias. Our researches indicated that mutation pressure rather than natural is the most important determinant in RHDV with high codon bias, and the codon usage bias is nearly contrary between ORF1 and ORF2, which is maybe one of factors regulating the expression of VP60 (encoding by ORF1) and VP10 (encoding by ORF2). Furthermore, negative selective constraints on the RHDV whole genome implied that VP10 played an important role in RHDV lifecycle. We conjectured that VP10 might be beneficial for the replication, release or both of virus by inducing infected cell apoptosis initiate by RHDV. According to the results of the principal component analysis for ORF2 of RSCU, we firstly separated 30 RHDV into two genotypes, and the ENC values indicated ORF1 and ORF2 were independent among the evolution of RHDV. All the results will guide the next researches on the RHDV as a reference.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the fund of Special Social Commonweal Research Programs for Research Institutions (2005DIB4J041, China).
Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

XTT and BYL contributed equally to the original draft of the manuscript, and approved the final version. ZL and WQJ contributed to conception and design of the manuscript, and revised the manuscript. LJX is the corresponding author. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Anhänge

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Karlin S, Mrazek J: What drives codon choices in human genes? J Mol Biol 1996,262(4):459-472. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0528CrossRefPubMed Karlin S, Mrazek J: What drives codon choices in human genes? J Mol Biol 1996,262(4):459-472. 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0528CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharp PM, Tuohy TM, Mosurski KR: Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 1986,14(13):5125-5143. 10.1093/nar/14.13.5125PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Sharp PM, Tuohy TM, Mosurski KR: Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 1986,14(13):5125-5143. 10.1093/nar/14.13.5125PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lesnik T, Solomovici J, Deana A, Ehrlich R, Reiss C: Ribosome traffic in E-coli and regulation of gene expression. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2000,202(2):175-185. 10.1006/jtbi.1999.1047CrossRefPubMed Lesnik T, Solomovici J, Deana A, Ehrlich R, Reiss C: Ribosome traffic in E-coli and regulation of gene expression. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2000,202(2):175-185. 10.1006/jtbi.1999.1047CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Shackelton LA, Parrish CR, Holmes EC: Evolutionary basis of codon usage and nucleotide composition bias in vertebrate DNA viruses. J Mol Evol 2006,62(5):551-563. 10.1007/s00239-005-0221-1CrossRefPubMed Shackelton LA, Parrish CR, Holmes EC: Evolutionary basis of codon usage and nucleotide composition bias in vertebrate DNA viruses. J Mol Evol 2006,62(5):551-563. 10.1007/s00239-005-0221-1CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Mooers AO, Holmes EC: The evolution of base composition and phylogenetic inference. Trends Ecol Evol 2000,15(9):365-369. 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01934-0CrossRefPubMed Mooers AO, Holmes EC: The evolution of base composition and phylogenetic inference. Trends Ecol Evol 2000,15(9):365-369. 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01934-0CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Jenkins GM, Holmes EC: The extent of codon usage bias in human RNA viruses and its evolutionary origin. Virus Res 2003,92(1):1-7. 10.1016/S0168-1702(02)00309-XCrossRefPubMed Jenkins GM, Holmes EC: The extent of codon usage bias in human RNA viruses and its evolutionary origin. Virus Res 2003,92(1):1-7. 10.1016/S0168-1702(02)00309-XCrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou J, Liu WJ, Peng SW, Sun XY, Frazer I: Papillomavirus capsid protein expression level depends on the match between codon usage and tRNA availability. J Virol 1999,73(6):4972-4982.PubMedCentralPubMed Zhou J, Liu WJ, Peng SW, Sun XY, Frazer I: Papillomavirus capsid protein expression level depends on the match between codon usage and tRNA availability. J Virol 1999,73(6):4972-4982.PubMedCentralPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao KN, Liu WJ, Frazer IH: Codon usage bias and A+T content variation in human papillomavirus genomes. Virus Res 2003,98(2):95-104. 10.1016/j.virusres.2003.08.019CrossRefPubMed Zhao KN, Liu WJ, Frazer IH: Codon usage bias and A+T content variation in human papillomavirus genomes. Virus Res 2003,98(2):95-104. 10.1016/j.virusres.2003.08.019CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Karlin S, Blaisdell BE, Schachtel GA: Contrasts in codon usage of latent versus productive genes of Epstein-Barr virus: data and hypotheses. J Virol 1990,64(9):4264-4273.PubMedCentralPubMed Karlin S, Blaisdell BE, Schachtel GA: Contrasts in codon usage of latent versus productive genes of Epstein-Barr virus: data and hypotheses. J Virol 1990,64(9):4264-4273.PubMedCentralPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Sewatanon J, Srichatrapimuk S, Auewarakul P: Compositional bias and size of genomes of human DNA viruses. Intervirology 2007,50(2):123-132. 10.1159/000098238CrossRefPubMed Sewatanon J, Srichatrapimuk S, Auewarakul P: Compositional bias and size of genomes of human DNA viruses. Intervirology 2007,50(2):123-132. 10.1159/000098238CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Hemert FJ, Berkhout B, Lukashov VV: Host-related nucleotide composition and codon usage as driving forces in the recent evolution of the Astroviridae. Virology 2007,361(2):447-454. 10.1016/j.virol.2006.11.021CrossRefPubMed Van Hemert FJ, Berkhout B, Lukashov VV: Host-related nucleotide composition and codon usage as driving forces in the recent evolution of the Astroviridae. Virology 2007,361(2):447-454. 10.1016/j.virol.2006.11.021CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Wirblich C, Thiel HJ, Meyers G: Genetic map of the calicivirus rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus as deduced from in vitro translation studies. J Virol 1996,70(11):7974-7983.PubMedCentralPubMed Wirblich C, Thiel HJ, Meyers G: Genetic map of the calicivirus rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus as deduced from in vitro translation studies. J Virol 1996,70(11):7974-7983.PubMedCentralPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Wirblich C, Sibilia M, Boniotti MB, Rossi C, Thiel HJ, Meyers G: 3C-like protease of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus: identification of cleavage sites in the ORF1 polyprotein and analysis of cleavage specificity. J Virol 1995,69(11):7159-7168.PubMedCentralPubMed Wirblich C, Sibilia M, Boniotti MB, Rossi C, Thiel HJ, Meyers G: 3C-like protease of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus: identification of cleavage sites in the ORF1 polyprotein and analysis of cleavage specificity. J Virol 1995,69(11):7159-7168.PubMedCentralPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyers G, Wirblich C, Thiel HJ, Thumfart JO: Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus: genome organization and polyprotein processing of a calicivirus studied after transient expression of cDNA constructs. Virology 2000,276(2):349-363. 10.1006/viro.2000.0545CrossRefPubMed Meyers G, Wirblich C, Thiel HJ, Thumfart JO: Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus: genome organization and polyprotein processing of a calicivirus studied after transient expression of cDNA constructs. Virology 2000,276(2):349-363. 10.1006/viro.2000.0545CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyers G: Translation of the minor capsid protein of a calicivirus is initiated by a novel termination-dependent reinitiation mechanism. J Biol Chem 2003,278(36):34051-34060. 10.1074/jbc.M304874200CrossRefPubMed Meyers G: Translation of the minor capsid protein of a calicivirus is initiated by a novel termination-dependent reinitiation mechanism. J Biol Chem 2003,278(36):34051-34060. 10.1074/jbc.M304874200CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Comeron JM, Aguade M: An evaluation of measures of synonymous codon usage bias. J Mol Evol 1998, 47: 268-274. 10.1007/PL00006384CrossRefPubMed Comeron JM, Aguade M: An evaluation of measures of synonymous codon usage bias. J Mol Evol 1998, 47: 268-274. 10.1007/PL00006384CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright F: The "effective number of codons" used in a gene. Gene 1990, 87: 23-29. 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90491-9CrossRefPubMed Wright F: The "effective number of codons" used in a gene. Gene 1990, 87: 23-29. 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90491-9CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu H, Zhao WM, Zheng Y, Wang H, Qi M, Yu XP: Analysis of Synonymous Codon Usage Bias in Chlamydia . Acta Biochim Biophys Sin 2005, 37: 1-10. 10.1093/abbs/37.1.1CrossRefPubMed Lu H, Zhao WM, Zheng Y, Wang H, Qi M, Yu XP: Analysis of Synonymous Codon Usage Bias in Chlamydia . Acta Biochim Biophys Sin 2005, 37: 1-10. 10.1093/abbs/37.1.1CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Nei M, Gojobori T: Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1986, 3: 418-426.PubMed Nei M, Gojobori T: Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1986, 3: 418-426.PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007, 24: 1596-1599. 10.1093/molbev/msm092CrossRefPubMed Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007, 24: 1596-1599. 10.1093/molbev/msm092CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM: Multivariate analysis. NewYork. Academic press; 1979. Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM: Multivariate analysis. NewYork. Academic press; 1979.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ewens WJ, Grant GR: Statistical Methods in Bioinformatics. NewYork. Springer; 2001.CrossRef Ewens WJ, Grant GR: Statistical Methods in Bioinformatics. NewYork. Springer; 2001.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Egger D, Wolk B, Gosert R, Bianchi L, Blum HE, Moradpour D, Bienz K: Expression of Hepatitis C virus proteins induced distinct membrane alterations including a candidate viral replication complex. J Virol 2002,76(12):5974-5984. 10.1128/JVI.76.12.5974-5984.2002PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Egger D, Wolk B, Gosert R, Bianchi L, Blum HE, Moradpour D, Bienz K: Expression of Hepatitis C virus proteins induced distinct membrane alterations including a candidate viral replication complex. J Virol 2002,76(12):5974-5984. 10.1128/JVI.76.12.5974-5984.2002PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Espert L, Codogno P, Biard-Piechaczyk K: Involvement of autophagy in viral infections: antiviral function and subversion by viruses. J Mol Med 2007, 85: 811-823. 10.1007/s00109-007-0173-6CrossRefPubMed Espert L, Codogno P, Biard-Piechaczyk K: Involvement of autophagy in viral infections: antiviral function and subversion by viruses. J Mol Med 2007, 85: 811-823. 10.1007/s00109-007-0173-6CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackson WT, Giddings TH, Taylor MP, Mulinyawe S, Rabinovitch M, Ropito R, Kirkegaard K: Subversion of cellular autophagosomal machinery by RNA viruses. PLoS Biol 2005,3(5):e156. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030156PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Jackson WT, Giddings TH, Taylor MP, Mulinyawe S, Rabinovitch M, Ropito R, Kirkegaard K: Subversion of cellular autophagosomal machinery by RNA viruses. PLoS Biol 2005,3(5):e156. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030156PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee YR, Lei HY, Liu MT, Wang JR, Chen SH, Jiang-Shieh YF, Lin YS, Yeh TM, Liu CC, Liu HS: Autophagic machinery activated by dengue virus enhances virus replication. Virology 2008, 374: 240-248. 10.1016/j.virol.2008.02.016CrossRefPubMed Lee YR, Lei HY, Liu MT, Wang JR, Chen SH, Jiang-Shieh YF, Lin YS, Yeh TM, Liu CC, Liu HS: Autophagic machinery activated by dengue virus enhances virus replication. Virology 2008, 374: 240-248. 10.1016/j.virol.2008.02.016CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Pedersen KW, van der Meer Y, Roos N, Snijder EJ: Open reading frame 1aencoded subunits of the arterivirus replicase induce endoplasmic reticulum derived double-membrane vesicles which carry the viral replication complex. J Virol 1999,73(3):2016-2026.PubMedCentralPubMed Pedersen KW, van der Meer Y, Roos N, Snijder EJ: Open reading frame 1aencoded subunits of the arterivirus replicase induce endoplasmic reticulum derived double-membrane vesicles which carry the viral replication complex. J Virol 1999,73(3):2016-2026.PubMedCentralPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Wileman T: Aggresomes and autophagy generate sites for virus replication. Science 2006, 312: 875-878. 10.1126/science.1126766CrossRefPubMed Wileman T: Aggresomes and autophagy generate sites for virus replication. Science 2006, 312: 875-878. 10.1126/science.1126766CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong J, Zhang J, Xiaoning S, Gao G, Mao I, McManus BM, Luo H: Autophagosome supports Coxsackievirus B3 replication in host cells. J Virol 2008,82(18):9143-9153. 10.1128/JVI.00641-08PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Wong J, Zhang J, Xiaoning S, Gao G, Mao I, McManus BM, Luo H: Autophagosome supports Coxsackievirus B3 replication in host cells. J Virol 2008,82(18):9143-9153. 10.1128/JVI.00641-08PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Bioinformatics analysis of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus genome
verfasst von
Xiao-ting Tian
Bao-yu Li
Liang Zhang
Wen-qiang Jiao
Ji-xing Liu
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2011
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Virology Journal / Ausgabe 1/2011
Elektronische ISSN: 1743-422X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-8-494

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2011

Virology Journal 1/2011 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.