Why the study?
Circulating animal coronaviruses occasionally infect humans, prompting investigation into genetic code preferences that distinguish single-host from promiscuous multiple-host-infecting viruses.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
496 viruses, including 34 coronaviruses, and 242 corresponding hosts
Comparison
Single-host vs promiscuous multiple-host-infecting viruses
Design
Comparative genomic and codon usage preference analysis
Promiscuous viruses show distinct codon scores that may aid zoonotic surveillance; leaves open causal validation and clinical translation.
Circulating animal coronaviruses occasionally infect humans. The SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the current worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 that has resulted in 2 112 844 deaths as of late January 2021. We compared genetic code preferences in 496 viruses, including 34 coronaviruses and 242 corresponding hosts, to uncover patterns that distinguish single- and 'promiscuous' multiple-host-infecting viruses. Based on a codon usage preference score, promiscuous viruses were shown to significantly employ nonoptimal codons, namely codons that involve 'wobble' binding to anticodons, as compared to single-host viruses. The codon adaptation index (CAI) and the effective number of codons (ENC) were calculated for all viruses and hosts. Promiscuous viruses were less adapted hosts vs single-host viruses (P-value = 4.392e-11). All coronaviruses exploit nonoptimal codons to infect multiple hosts. We found that nonoptimal codon preferences at the beginning of viral coding sequences enhance the translational efficiency of viral proteins within the host. Finally, coronaviruses lack endogenous RNA degradation motifs to a significant degree, thereby increasing viral mRNA burden and infection load. To conclude, we found that promiscuously infecting coronaviruses prefer nonoptimal codon usage to remove degradation motifs from their RNAs and to dramatically increase their viral RNA production rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carmi et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: