Advertisement

Virus Genes

pp 1–4 | Cite as

Misinterpretation of Schmallenberg virus sequence variations: the sample material makes the difference

  • Kerstin WernikeEmail author
  • Martin Beer
Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

In recent reports about the molecular epidemiology of Schmallenberg virus (SBV), an orthobunyavirus affecting ruminants, it was proposed that the observed sequence variability within the viral M-segment might be higher in sheep than in cattle. However, these analyses are highly biased by the sample material from which the publicly available sequences were generated. While from cattle predominantly blood samples from acutely infected animals were studied, the vast majority of ovine samples originate from malformed fetuses or newborn lambs. Therefore, the observed sequence variability is misinterpreted since the samples from malformed fetuses and lambs do not reflect circulating SBV.

Keywords

Phylogenetic analysis Mutation Host Malformation 

Notes

Funding

This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoffmann B, Scheuch M, Höper D, Jungblut R, Holsteg M, Schirrmeier H, Eschbaumer M, Goller KV, Wernike K, Fischer M, Breithaupt A, Mettenleiter TC, Beer M (2012) Novel orthobunyavirus in Cattle, Europe, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis 18(3):469–472.  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1803.111905 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EFSA (2013) “Schmallenberg” virus: analysis of the epidemiological data (May 2013). EFSA Supporting Publications 2013 EN-3429 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/supporting/doc/429e.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2013
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Wernike K, Hoffmann B, Beer M (2013) Schmallenberg virus. Dev Biol (Basel) 135:175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000312546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elliott RM (2014) Orthobunyaviruses: recent genetic and structural insights. Nat Rev Microbiol 12(10):673–685.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3332 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer M, Hoffmann B, Goller KV, Höper D, Wernike K, Beer M (2013) A mutation ‘hot spot’ in the Schmallenberg virus M segment. J Gen Virol 94(Pt 6):1161–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.049908-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coupeau D, Claine F, Wiggers L, Kirschvink N, Muylkens B (2013) In vivo and in vitro identification of a hypervariable region in Schmallenberg virus. J Gen Virol 94(Pt 6):1168–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.051821-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kesik-Maliszewska J, Antos A, Rola J, Larska M (2018) Comparison of Schmallenberg virus sequences isolated from mammal host and arthropod vector. Virus Genes.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-018-1607-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGowan SL, La Rocca SA, Grierson SS, Dastjerdi A, Choudhury B, Steinbach F (2018) Incursion of Schmallenberg virus into Great Britain in 2011 and emergence of variant sequences in 2016. Vet J 234:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehér E, Marton S, Tóth AG, Ursu K, Wernike K, Beer M, Dán A, Bányai K (2017) Sequence analysis of Schmallenberg virus genomes detected in Hungary. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung 64(4):373–384.  https://doi.org/10.1556/030.64.2017.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wernike K, Beer M (2017) Schmallenberg virus: a novel virus of veterinary importance. Adv Virus Res 99:39–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aivir.2017.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wernike K, Hoffmann B, Conraths FJ, Beer M (2015) Schmallenberg virus recurrence, Germany, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis 21(7):1202–1204.  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2107.150180 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S (2011) MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28(10):2731–2739.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr121 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wernike K, Holsteg M, Schirrmeier H, Hoffmann B, Beer M (2014) Natural infection of pregnant cows with Schmallenberg virus: a follow-up study. PLoS ONE 9(5):e98223.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098223 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wernike K, Reimann I, Kraatz F, Hoffman B, Hechinger S, Beer M (2017) M-segment variation of Schmallenberg virus in malformed fetuses is the consequence of immune escape. In: 11th annual meeting EPIZONE, 19–21 September 2017, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roman-Sosa G, Brocchi E, Schirrmeier H, Wernike K, Schelp C, Beer M (2016) Analysis of the humoral immune response against the envelope glycoprotein Gc of Schmallenberg virus reveals a domain located at the amino terminus targeted by mAbs with neutralizing activity. J Gen Virol 97(3):571–580.  https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.000377 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wernike K, Aebischer A, Roman-Sosa G, Beer M (2017) The N-terminal domain of Schmallenberg virus envelope protein Gc is highly immunogenic and can provide protection from infection. Sci Rep 7:42500.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42500 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic VirologyFriedrich-Loeffler-InstitutGreifswald - Insel RiemsGermany

Personalised recommendations