Advertisement

Coronaviruses pp 105-109 | Cite as

An Intraleader Open Reading Frame is Selected from a Hypervariable 5’ Terminus during Persistent Infection by the Bovine Coronavirus

  • Martin A. Hofmann
  • Savithra D. Senanayake
  • David A. Brian
Chapter
  • 308 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 342)

Abstract

In an effort to unambiguously establish the 5’ terminal nucleotides on bovine coronavirus (BCV) mRNAs, we developed a method that employs the head-to-tail ligation of single-stranded cDNA from extended primers before PCR amplification, cloning and sequencing1,2. Only the mRNAs for the N, M, and S structural proteins were studied in this manner, and mRNAs isolated from cells at various times postinfection through 432 days were studied. We learned that the 5’ terminal five nucleotides were hypervariable among four major terminus types, and that certain types predominated at various times postinfection. The type I terminus (GAUUGUG…) predominated within the first 4 days postinfection and was considered the wild type terminus. At 296 days postinfection and beyond, the type II terminus (GAUUAUG…) predominated. Types II, III and IV all possessed a G → A mutation that gave rise to an AUG codon and established an intraleader ORF for 11 amino acids. Although we have not yet been able to show the existence of the peptide in persistently infected cells, we have demonstrated that the intraleader ORF attenuates translation of downstream ORFs during translation in vitro.

Keywords

Persistent Infection Virus Inoculum Terminal Nucleotide Result Amino Acid Terminus Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hofmann, M. A., and D. A. Brian. 1991. PCR Methods and Applications 1:43–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofmann, M. A., and D. A. Brian. 1991. BioTechniques 11:30#x2013;31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hofmann, M. A., P. B. Sethna, and D. A. Brian. 1990. J. Virol. 64:4108–4114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Senanayake, S. D., M. A. Hofmann, J. L. Maki, and D. A. Brian. 1992. J. Virol. 66:5277–5283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Makino, S., and M. M. C. Lai. 1989. J. Virol. 63:5285–5292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, T. D. K., M. E. G. Boursnell, and M. M. Binns. 1984. J. Gen. Virol. 65:1437–1442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lai, M. M. M. C., R. S. Baric, P. R. Brayton, and S. A. Stohlman. 1984. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 81:3626–3630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamahora, T., L. H. Soe, and M. M. C. Lai. 1989. Virus Research 12:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schreiber, S. S., T. Kamahora, and M. M. C. Lai. 1989. Virology 169:142–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sethna, P. B., M. A. Hofmann, and D. A. Brian. 1991. J. Virol. 65:320–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shieh, C.-K., L. H. Soe, S. Makino, M.-F. Chang, S. A. Stohlman, and M. M. C. Lai. 1987. Virology 156:321–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin A. Hofmann
    • 1
  • Savithra D. Senanayake
    • 1
  • David A. Brian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations