Genetic analysis reveals distinct phylogenetic clustering patterns across different genomic regions of enteroviruses.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Different evolutionary pressures on enterovirus regions require segmented phylogenetic approaches in monitoring; extends genomic models for future research.
Genetic and phylogenetic analysis of enteroviruses showed that in the 5'NCR enteroviruses formed three clusters: polioviruses (PVs), coxsackievirus A type 21 (CAV21), CAV24 and enterovirus type 70 (ENV70) formed one cluster; coxsackievirus B isolates (CBVs), CAV9, CAV16, ENV71, echovirus type 11 (EV11), EV12 and all partially sequenced echoviruses and swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) belonged to another cluster and bovine enteroviruses (BEVs) formed the third cluster. In the capsid coding region five clusters were seen: PVs, CAV21 and CAV24 formed one cluster (PV-like); ENV70 formed a cluster of its own; all CBVs, CAV9, EV11, EV12 and SVDV formed the third cluster (CBV-like); CAV16, CAV2 and ENV71 belonged to the fourth cluster (CAV16-like) and BEVs formed their own cluster (BEV-like). In the 3'NCR the same clusters were seen as in the coding region suggesting a close association of the 3'NCR with viral proteins while the cellular environment may be more important in the evolution of the 5'NCR. Secondary structures were predicted in the 3'NCR, which showed two different patterns among the five clusters. A potential pseudoknot region common in all five clusters was identified. Although the BEV-like viruses formed a separate cluster in all genomic regions, in the coding region they seem to be phylogenetically related to the CAV16-like viruses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pöyry et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: