| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Umeå Centre for Molecular Pathogenesis, By. 6L, Umeå University, S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
Correspondence
Dan Hultmark
dan.hultmark{at}ucmp.umu.se
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ accession number of the sequence reported in this paper is DQ321720.
Present address: Department of Botany, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. 
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Hultmark, 2003; Leclerc & Reichhart, 2004; Tanji & Ip, 2005). The fruit fly faces many parasites, pathogens and other micro-organisms in its natural habitat, rotting fruit. The innate defences against bacteria and fungi in Drosophila are now relatively well understood, yet surprisingly little has been done to study how viral infections are controlled. Recent studies have shown that the JAK/STAT pathway plays a role in the response against Drosophila C virus, while the Toll signalling pathway may affect the sensitivity to Drosophila X virus infection (Dostert et al., 2005; Zambon et al., 2005). The difference in results may be explained by the fact that two different viruses were studied. Better knowledge about Drosophila viruses and their biology is needed to develop this field.
Recently, several insect viruses have been sequenced, making it possible to classify them. RNA viruses of the picorna-like superfamily are among the best studied of the insect viruses. Picorna-like viruses are further categorized on the basis of their genome organization. The vertebrate picornaviruses, the members of the family Picornaviridae, are positive-strand, single-stranded RNA viruses. They utilize their genomic RNA as an exclusive message for a single polyprotein, from which all viral proteins are produced as the result of processing (Ryan & Flint, 1997). Other viruses of the picorna-like superfamily share a conserved helicase-protease-replicase (H-P-Rep) cassette of replicative proteins with the picornaviruses (Koonin & Dolja, 1993). One heterogeneous group of picorna-like viruses found in insects and other arthropods is usually included in a ‘floating genus’, the genus Iflavirus. Their genomes are organized as in the family Picornaviridae, with a single open reading frame (ORF) where the structural proteins are encoded 5' of the H-P-Rep cassette. In contrast, in the family Dicistroviridae, the structural proteins are encoded in a second ORF in the 3' part of their genome. Similar to iflaviruses, dicistroviruses have so far only been found in insects and other arthropods.
Few viruses have been described from D. melanogaster and most have not yet been extensively studied and characterized (Ashburner et al., 2005; Brun & Plus, 1980). Three viruses have been classified as picorna-like: Drosophila A virus, Drosophila P virus and Drosophila C virus, but only the latter has been sequenced and has been shown to belong to the family Dicistroviridae (Johnson & Christian, 1998). Drosophila X virus is a double-stranded RNA virus of the family Birnaviridae (Zambon et al., 2005) and Drosophila sigma virus, a rhabdovirus with a negative-strand RNA genome, is widely spread in natural populations of D. melanogaster and is one of the best-studied viruses in Drosophila (Landès-Devauchelle et al., 1995). Furthermore, several retrotransposons have been characterized, some of which, like gypsy, can also act as independent retroviruses (Kim et al., 1994).
In this paper, we describe a picorna-like Drosophila virus, Nora virus (‘new’ in Armenian), which represents a new distinct virus family. Unlike other picorna-like viruses, its genome has four ORFs. One encodes a conserved picornavirus-like H-P-Rep cassette of replicative proteins, but the others show no obvious sequence similarity to previously described viruses. Nora virus is present as a persistent infection in several tested laboratory stocks and wild-caught flies.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). Dm1 and Dm2 were recently collected from the vicinity of Umeå by Ines Anderl and Svenja Stöven. The Drosophila simulans, Drosophila erecta, Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila virilis stocks were all obtained from Jan Larsson, Umeå University.
Virus purification.
RelishE20 flies were homogenized in 10 ml NT buffer (100 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris/HCl, pH 7.4) and clarified by centrifugation at 4500 g for 20 min. Supernatant was extracted with an equal volume of 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane before the aqueous phase was layered over a discontinuous CsCl gradient (1.5 and 1.2 g cm–3) and centrifuged at 300 000 g for 4 h in an SW60 rotor (Beckman). A band near the interface was removed by suction before passing it through a second discontinuous CsCl gradient, using the same density gradient as before. The band from the second CsCl gradient was desalted and negatively stained with 2 % phosphotungstic acid (pH 7) and examined with a Zeiss EM 900 electron microscope.
Cloning and sequencing the viral genome.
A differential display screen, comparing untreated flies with those infected for 6 or 16 h, was performed as described previously (Åsling et al., 1995). An induced PCR band was extracted from a separating gel, reamplified using the initial primer combinations and cloned by TA cloning (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Using the induced PCR band as a probe, eight cDNA clones were isolated from two libraries of immunostimulated adult Canton S flies (Kylsten et al., 1990; S. K. Ekengren, 1996, unpublished). A series of 5'- and 3'-RACE reactions, using a SMART RACE cDNA Amplification kit (BD Biosciences), was conducted to obtain the remaining upstream and downstream sequences of the viral genome. For 5'-RACE, we used RelishE20 total RNA as template and synthesized cDNA using a virus-specific oligonucleotide, as described in the user manual. A gel-purified PCR product from cDNA amplification was ligated into the pCR2.1-TOPO vector (Invitrogen). The vector was then transformed into TOPO-10-competent cells (Invitrogen) and sequenced using the Big Dye sequencing kit (Perkin Elmer Life Sciences) with either vector- or virus-specific primers. For 3'-RACE, we used an oligo(dT) primer, as described in the user manual. cDNA was amplified and sequenced as described above.
RNA preparation, Northern blot analysis and hybridization.
RelishE20 total RNA was prepared using the Aurum total RNA kit (Bio-Rad). For Northern blots, 15 µg total RNA per lane was run on a 1 % agarose gel containing formaldehyde along with 0.24–9.5 kb RNA size standards (Invitrogen). Hybridization was performed under high-stringency conditions (50 % formamide, 42 °C). Virus probe was made from a 1.65 kb PCR fragment, after labelling with the Rediprime II kit (Amersham Pharmacia), according to the manufacturer's instructions. After hybridization, the filters were washed and the radioactivity monitored using a PhosphorImager (Storm; Molecular Dynamics).
DNA preparation and Southern blot analysis.
DNA was isolated from Canton S and RelishE20 flies essentially as described by Hamilton et al. (1991). Approximately 5–10 µg aliquots (less for Canton S) of genomic DNA were digested with EcoRI or BamHI. The digested DNA was separated on a 0.7 % agarose gel and blotted on to a Hybond membrane (Amersham Biosciences). Probe hybridization and detection was carried out as for Northern blot analysis. Different concentrations of a control plasmid containing the probe sequence were run on the same blot as a standard.
Preparation and hybridization with ssRNA probes.
The pCR2.1-TOPO in vitro transcription system (Invitrogen) was used to synthesize radioactively labelled probes from the T3 and T7 promoters. Linearized plasmid DNA was made by cutting the end of the QRT-PCR plasmid (see below) and used as template in the transcription reaction. Briefly, a 20 µl reaction mixture containing 1 µg linearized DNA template, 1x transcription buffer (Roche), RNase inhibitor (20 U), 1 mM each ATP, GTP and CTP, T3 or T7 RNA polymerase (40 U) and 1.5 mM [32P]UTP (10 mCi ml–1, 3000 Ci mmol–1; Amersham) was incubated at 37 °C for 2 h. After incubation, the template DNA was removed by DNase I digestion (20 U) at 37 °C for 30 min. Unincorporated nucleotides were removed on a Sepharose G-50 column (Roche) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Hybridization of Northern blots with ssRNA probes was done by pre-hybridization for 2 h at 55 °C. Hybridization was performed in the same pre-hybridization solution with the addition of the 32P-labelled ssRNA, essentially as described by Jiang et al. (1987). After hybridization, the filters were washed and the radioactivity monitored using a PhosphorImager as above.
Treatment with RNase I.
Total RNA from RelishE20 was treated with RNase I (BioLabs) for 30 min at 37 °C, followed by heat inactivation for 20 min at 72 °C. RNA was precipitated using 4 M LiCl and 100 % ethanol for 30 min at –80 °C, washed with 70 % ethanol and resuspended in DEPC-treated water. The presence of virus was tested by RT-PCR amplification (reverse transcription at 55 °C for 10 min, followed by 95 °C for 5 min and amplification for 40 cycles at 95 °C for 10 s, followed by 30 s of annealing/extension at 58 °C) using the same primers as described below.
Quantitative real-time RT-PCR (QRT-PCR).
QRT-PCR was performed in duplicate, using the SYBR Green detection system (Bio-Rad) in the iCycle iQ Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad). The primers used produced a product of 141 bp and were: 5'-AACCTCGTAGCAATCCTCTCAAG-3' (forward) and 5'-TTCTTGTCCGGTGTATCCTGTATC-3' (reverse). The results were quantified by comparison with a dilution series of in vitro-transcribed RNA from a viral subclone, the QRT-PCR plasmid. This plasmid contains a 370 bp RT-PCR product from virus-specific primers [5'-TTAAGGTGTTAGAGAACAGC-3' (forward) and 5'-CGTAAACACCAACTTACTTC-3' (reverse)], subcloned into pCR2.1-TOPO as described above. Such standard curves were typically generated for each experiment and the linear range always extended below the lowest and above the highest RNA concentrations in our positive samples. The specificity of the PCR products was verified further by analysis of their melting points, which differed from the non-specific products that sometimes appeared in negative controls.
Sequence analysis and phylogenetic trees.
BLAST searches were performed against the GenBank virus database on the National Center for Biotechnology Information web server (Bethesda, USA). Transmembrane regions were predicted with TMHMM 2.0 (Krogh et al., 2001) on the Prediction Servers at the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis (Lyngby, Denmark). A search for structural motifs in the proteins was done against the structure-anchored hidden Markov models (Tångrot et al., 2006) on the UCMP FISH server at Umeå University (http://babel.ucmp.umu.se/fish/). Multiple sequence alignment was done with CLUSTAL_W (Jeanmougin et al., 1998) on the Baylor College of Medicine web server and phylogenetic analysis was done with a maximum-parsimony algorithm (Swofford, 1991), using PAUP 4.0b10 for Macintosh (Sinauer Associates).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
General properties of Nora virus
Nora virus RNA could be detected as a single band in a Northern blot with RNA from whole flies (Fig. 1a). The same band was seen with probes from different parts of the viral genome (data not shown) and no major subgenomic RNA species were detected. We used CsCl gradient centrifugation to isolate viral particles that contained the same RNA. They were found to be non-enveloped, with a diameter of approximately 30 nm (Fig. 1b). Nora virus is a positive-strand virus, as shown by hybridization with strand-specific RNA probes (Fig. 1a). Furthermore, the viral RNA was sensitive to digestion with RNase I, confirming that it is single-stranded (Fig. 1c). No DNA form of the virus could be detected on a Southern blot, at a detection level of about 0.01 viral genomes per Drosophila genome (Fig. 1d).
|
). The second ORF from the 5' end, ORF2, was the largest, encoding 2105 aa. It encoded a picornavirus-like H-P-Rep cassette, which included an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, an RNA helicase and a protease. The polymerase domain was the most conserved and we could identify all eight consensus motifs typical of RNA-dependent RNA polymerases of ‘supergroup 1’ (Koonin & Dolja, 1993), which includes the picorna-like viruses. A pairwise comparison shows 27 % sequence identity to the honeybee sacbrood virus (GenBank accession no. AF092924
[GenBank]
) over a stretch of 407 residues. The RNA helicase domain was more similar to that of vertebrate picornaviruses such as the Ljungan virus (GenBank accession no. NC_003976
[GenBank]
), with 33 % identity over 172 residues. Again, the three consensus motifs typical of picorna-related viruses (Koonin & Dolja, 1993) were all present. The protease domain was less well conserved. To date, the best hit was to the Triatoma picorna-like virus (GenBank accession no. NC_003783
[GenBank]
), with 27 % sequence identity over 88 residues only. Two hydrophobic stretches near the N terminus, residues 25–47 and 68–90, were predicted to be transmembrane regions.
|
-1 (GenBank accession no. M35963
[GenBank]
) of the mammalian orthoreovirus 1 (23 % sequence identity in a region of 164 residues). A search against a structure-anchored hidden Markov model database (Tångrot et al., 2006) suggested a relationship to a family of 
-helical structural motifs, which is found in spectrin and other proteins. Finally, ORF4 encoded 931 aa and was not obviously related to any known sequence.
We used the sequences of the most conserved domains, the polymerase and the helicase, to investigate the possible phylogenetic relationship between Nora virus and other picorna-like viruses. Fig. 3 showed that Nora virus is not closely related to any of the major families of picorna-like viruses. The polymerase domain sequence of Nora virus showed affinity to the Iflavirus group. On the other hand, the RNA helicase domain seemed to be more closely related to the mammalian picornaviruses. However, neither relationship had a strong bootstrap support.
|
(a). Most wild-type and mutant stocks had low titres, but high titres were found in a few mutants, including the P element excision mutant RelishE20 (Hedengren et al., 1999). This was probably not caused by the mutation in the Relish gene, as similar titres were found in other P element excision stocks that were generated in the same study, including the precise excision line RelishE23, which retains a wild-type Relish gene. The virus was not endemic to our laboratory, as we could also detect it in stocks from other laboratories, in some cases at high levels (results not shown), as well as in recently wild-caught animals (Dm1 and Dm2 in Fig. 4b). The wild-type Canton S stock usually had low levels of the virus, but in a few experiments flies with a high titre were found in this stock (Fig. 4c). We also detected the virus in D. simulans, a close relative of D. melanogaster, but not in the more distantly related species D. yakuba, D. erecta and D. virilis (Fig. 4b).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
How the four ORFs are translated is an interesting question. There are short overlaps of 7 and 26 nt between the first three ORFs and it is therefore possible that ORF2 and ORF3 are translated after ribosomal frameshifting (Dreher & Miller, 2006). Between ORF3 and ORF4 there are 85 nt of non-coding RNA, which may act as an internal ribosome entry site for the translation of ORF4. However, neither this region nor the upstream regions of the other ORFs are obviously related to known internal ribosome entry site sequences and they have little potential to form stem–loop structures.
Surprisingly, persistent Nora virus infections do not give rise to any obvious pathology and even the high-titre stocks appeared healthy. We have no explanation for the large differences in viral titres among different stocks, but they did not appear to be related to the genotype of the fly. As the virus was first detected in material from bacterially infected flies, we tested whether it could be induced by bacterial infection or other types of stress, but the results were negative (data not shown). It is possible that we are dealing with more than one viral strain. The viral sequence shown here was derived from the Relish mutant stock, which has a high viral titre. The cDNA clones we isolated from Canton S flies differed only minimally from this sequence and may also correspond to high-titre virus. In general, our Canton S wild-type stock harbours low numbers of Nora virus, but occasionally we have also found increased levels in this stock. This is probably the reason why the virus was first detected in our differential display screen and why it was well represented in the two independent cDNA libraries. We also sequenced a 113 bp fragment of a low-titre virus and did not find any differences. It would be interesting to sequence the entire genome of a low-titre virus to investigate whether there is any difference, but this is a more demanding task.
An important question is in what form Nora virus remains dormant in the flies and how it is transmitted. It is obviously not integrated into the genome, as no DNA form was detected. There are now several examples of viruses that are able to cause silent, persistent infections, but the mechanisms involved are still poorly understood (Oldstone, 2006). In fact, it has recently become apparent that this phenomenon is both common and important. For instance, human picornaviruses, such as poliovirus and coxsackieviruses, are able to cause persistent infections and this can lead to late-onset pathological complications such as myocarditis and post-polio syndrome (Julien et al., 1999; Klingel et al., 1992; Pelletier et al., 1998). The presence of a viral reservoir in the population may also have serious epidemiological consequences. The adaptations of these viruses for persistence have mainly been studied in tissue culture systems (Calvez et al., 1993; Pelletier et al., 1998). Using Nora virus, it will now be possible to take advantage of Drosophila genetics to study the interactions in vivo between a persistent virus and its host.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Åsling, B., Dushay, M. S. & Hultmark, D. (1995). Identification of early genes in the Drosophila immune response by PCR-based differential display: the Attacin A gene and the evolution of attacin-like proteins. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 25, 511–518.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brun, G. & Plus, N. (1980). The viruses of Drosophila. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, pp. 625–702. Edited by M. Ashburner & T. R. F. Wright. London: Academic Press.
Calvez, V., Pelletier, I., Borzakian, S. & Colbère-Garapin, F. (1993). Identification of a region of the poliovirus genome involved in persistent infection of HEp-2 cells. J Virol 67, 4432–4435.
Dostert, C., Jouanguy, E., Irving, P., Troxler, L., Galiana-Arnoux, D., Hetru, C., Hoffmann, J. A. & Imler, J.-L. (2005). The Jak-STAT signaling pathway is required but not sufficient for the antiviral response of Drosophila. Nat Immunol 6, 946–953.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dreher, T. W. & Miller, W. A. (2006). Translational control in positive strand RNA plant viruses. Virology 344, 185–197.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hamilton, B. A., Palazzolo, M. J., Chang, J. H., VijayRaghavan, K., Mayeda, C. A., Whitney, M. A. & Meyerowitz, E. M. (1991). Large scale screen for transposon insertions into cloned genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88, 2731–2735.
Hedengren, M., Åsling, B., Dushay, M. S., Ando, I., Ekengren, S., Wihlborg, M. & Hultmark, D. (1999). Relish, a central factor in the control of humoral, but not cellular immunity in Drosophila. Mol Cell 4, 827–837.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hoffmann, J. A. (2003). The immune response of Drosophila. Nature 426, 33–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hultmark, D. (2003). Drosophila immunity: paths and patterns. Curr Opin Immunol 15, 12–19.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jeanmougin, F., Thompson, J. D., Gouy, M., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. (1998). Multiple sequence alignment with Clustal X. Trends Biochem Sci 23, 403–405.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jiang, X., Estes, M. K. & Metcalf, T. G. (1987). Detection of hepatitis A virus by hybridization with single-stranded RNA probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 53, 2487–2495.
Johnson, K. N. & Christian, P. D. (1998). The novel genome organization of the insect picorna-like virus Drosophila C virus suggests this virus belongs to a previously undescribed virus family. J Gen Virol 79, 191–203.[Abstract]
Julien, J., Leparc-Goffart, I., Lina, B., Fuchs, F., Foray, S., Janatova, I., Aymard, M. & Kopecka, H. (1999). Postpolio syndrome: poliovirus persistence is involved in the pathogenesis. J Neurol 246, 472–476.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kim, A., Terzian, C., Santamaria, P., Pélisson, A., Prud'homme, N. & Bucheton, A. (1994). Retroviruses in invertebrates: the gypsy retrotransposon is apparently an infectious retrovirus of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91, 1285–1289.
Klingel, K., Hohenadl, C., Canu, A., Albrecht, M., Seemann, M., Mall, G. & Kandolf, R. (1992). Ongoing enterovirus-induced myocarditis is associated with persistent heart muscle infection: quantitative analysis of virus replication, tissue damage, and inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89, 314–318.
Koonin, E. V. & Dolja, V. V. (1993). Evolution and taxonomy of positive-strand RNA viruses: implications of comparative analysis of amino acid sequences. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 28, 375–430.[Medline]
Krogh, A., Larsson, B., von Heijne, G. & Sonnhammer, E. L. L. (2001). Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol 305, 567–580.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kylsten, P., Samakovlis, C. & Hultmark, D. (1990). The cecropin locus in Drosophila; a compact gene cluster involved in the response to infection. EMBO J 9, 217–224.[Medline]
Landès-Devauchelle, C., Bras, F., Dezélée, S. & Teninges, D. (1995). Gene 2 of the sigma rhabdovirus genome encodes the P protein, and gene 3 encodes a protein related to the reverse transcriptase of retroelements. Virology 213, 300–312.[CrossRef][Medline]
Leclerc, V. & Reichhart, J.-M. (2004). The immune response of Drosophila melanogaster. Immunol Rev 198, 59–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
Oldstone, M. B. A. (2006). Viral persistence: parameters, mechanisms and future predictions. Virology 344, 111–118.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pelletier, I., Duncan, G., Pavio, N. & Colbère-Garapin, F. (1998). Molecular mechanisms of poliovirus persistence: key role of capsid determinants during the establishment phase. Cell Mol Life Sci 54, 1385–1402.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ryan, M. D. & Flint, M. (1997). Virus-encoded proteinases of the picornavirus super-group. J Gen Virol 78, 699–723.[Medline]
Swofford, D. L. (1991). PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, 3.0. Champaign, IL: Illinois National History Survey.
Tångrot, J., Wang, L., Kågström, B. & Sauer, U. (2006). FISH – family identification of sequence homologues using structure anchored hidden Markov models. Nucleic Acids Res 34 (web server issue), W10–W14.
Tanji, T. & Ip, Y. T. (2005). Regulators of the Toll and Imd pathways in the Drosophila innate immune response. Trends Immunol 26, 193–198.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zambon, R. A., Nandakumar, M., Vakharia, V. N. & Wu, L. P. (2005). The Toll pathway is important for an antiviral response in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102, 7257–7262.
Received 2 March 2006;
accepted 17 May 2006.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Patot, D. Lepetit, D. Charif, J. Varaldi, and F. Fleury Molecular Detection, Penetrance, and Transmission of an Inherited Virus Responsible for Behavioral Manipulation of an Insect Parasitoid Appl. Envir. Microbiol., February 1, 2009; 75(3): 703 - 710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
