![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 Furuse et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Evolution of the M gene of the influenza A virus in different host species: large-scale sequence analysis 1Department of Virology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryou-machi Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan Corresponding author.Yuki Furuse: furusey/at/mail.tains.tohoku.ac.jp; Akira Suzuki: suzukia/at/mail.tains.tohoku.ac.jp; Taro Kamigaki: kamigakit/at/mail.tains.tohoku.ac.jp; Hitoshi Oshitani: oshitanih/at/mail.tains.tohoku.ac.jp Received April 15, 2009; Accepted May 29, 2009. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Background Influenza A virus infects not only humans, but also other species including avian and swine. If a novel influenza A subtype acquires the ability to spread between humans efficiently, it could cause the next pandemic. Therefore it is necessary to understand the evolutionary processes of influenza A viruses in various hosts in order to gain better knowledge about the emergence of pandemic virus. The virus has segmented RNA genome and 7th segment, M gene, encodes 2 proteins. M1 is a matrix protein and M2 is a membrane protein. The M gene may be involved in determining host tropism. Besides, novel vaccines targeting M1 or M2 protein to confer cross subtype protection have been under development. We conducted the present study to investigate the evolution of the M gene by analyzing its sequence in different species. Results Phylogenetic tree revealed host-specific lineages and evolution rates were different among species. Selective pressure on M2 was stronger than that on M1. Selective pressure on M1 for human influenza was stronger than that for avian influenza, as well as M2. Site-by-site analyses identified one site (amino acid position 219) in M1 as positively selected in human. Positions 115 and 121 in M1, at which consensus amino acids were different between human and avian, were under negative selection in both hosts. As to M2, 10 sites were under positive selection in human. Seven sites locate in extracellular domain. That might be due to host's immune pressure. One site (position 27) positively selected in transmembrane domain is known to be associated with drug resistance. And, two sites (positions 57 and 89) locate in cytoplasmic domain. The sites are involved in several functions. Conclusion The M gene of influenza A virus has evolved independently, under different selective pressure on M1 and M2 among different hosts. We found potentially important sites that may be related to host tropism and immune responses. These sites may be important for evolutional process in different hosts and host adaptation. Background The influenza virus is a common cause of respiratory infection all over the world. The influenza A virus can infect not only humans but also avian, swine, and equine species. The virus has a negative single-stranded RNA with eight gene segments, namely PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NP, NA, M, and NS. The subtype of influenza A virus is determined by the antigenicity of two surface glycoproteins, hemaglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). The subtypes currently circulating in the human population are H1N1 and H3N2. Influenza A viruses cause epidemics and pandemics by antigenic drift and antigenic shift, respectively [1]. Antigenic drift is an accumulation of point mutations leading minor and gradual antigenic changes. Antigenic shift involves major antigenic changes by introduction of new HA and/or NA subtype into human population. All known HA and NA subtypes are maintained in avian species, and all mammalian influenza A viruses are thought to be derived from the avian influenza A virus pool [1]. In avian species, influenza A viruses are in an evolutionary stasis [1]. In contrast, all gene segments of mammalian viruses continue to accumulate amino acid substitutions [1]. Today, the emergence of an influenza pandemic is of great global concern. If a novel influenza A subtype acquires the ability to spread between humans efficiently, it could cause the next pandemic [1]. This ability is acquired by reassortment between human and non-human influenza A viruses or by the accumulation of mutations in the non-human influenza virus. It is necessary to understand the evolutionary processes of influenza A viruses in various hosts so that we have better knowledge about the emergence of this pandemic virus. We conducted the present study to investigate the evolution of the M gene among different species. Although there are numerous studies on the evolution of the HA gene [2-7], only a few studies on the evolution of the M gene have been conducted [8]. The M gene is intriguing because it encodes both matrix and membrane proteins, and has multiple functions. The M gene (1027 bps) encodes two proteins, namely M1 (at nucleotide position 26 to 784) and M2 (at nucleotide position 26 to 51 and 740 to 1007) [9]. M1 is a matrix protein that lies just beneath the viral envelope in the form of dimers and interacts with viral ribonucleoprotein (vRNP) complex, forming a bridge between the inner core components and the membrane proteins [10-13]. vRNPs harbor the determinants for host range [1,14,15]. M1 contacts with both viral RNA and NP, promoting the formation of RNP complexes and causing the dissociation of RNP from the nuclear matrix [16-21]. M1 plays a vital role in assembly by recruiting the viral components to the site of assembly and essential role in the budding process including formation of viral particles [22,23]. M2 is a membrane protein which is inserted into the viral envelope and projects from the surface of the virus as tetramers [24,25]. The M2 protein comprises 97 amino acids – 24 in the extracellular domain, 19 in the transmembrane domain, and 54 in the cytoplasmic domain. Extracellular domain of M2 is recognized by hosts' immune system [26-28]. Transmembrane domain of M2 has ion channel activity, which involved in uncoating process of the virus in cell [29]. Amantadine inhibits virus replication by blocking the acid-activated ion channel. The cytoplasmic domain of M2 interacts with M1 and is required for genome packaging and formation of virus particles [30-36]. The molecular mechanism of how the host range of influenza A viruses is determined is still not fully understood. The M gene may be involved in determining host tropism. Besides, novel vaccines targeting M1 or M2 proteins to confer cross-subtype protection have been shown to be promising [37-43]. Therefore, understanding of evolution of the M gene is of great importance and practical relevance. Results Phylogenetic Tree The phylogenetic trees for the M gene of all the sequence data we analyzed are shown in Figure Figure1.1
The M gene of all known human influenza A viruses, i.e., H1N1 between 1918 and 1957, H2N2 between 1957 and 1968, H3N2 after 1968, and H1N1 after 1977 was derived from that of the 1918 Spanish Flu. One lineage (Hu1) included three different subtypes (H1N1 between 1918 and 1957, H2N2 between 1957 and 1968, and H3N2 after 1968), which means that the same M gene was maintained in human influenza even after two antigenic shifts in 1957 and 1968. Another lineage (Hu2) included H1N1 after 1977. This M gene was also derived from Spanish Flu, but underwent different evolutionary processes and formed another lineage. Since H1N1 re-emerged in 1977 as Russian Flu, the two subtypes (H1N1 and H3N2) have been co-circulating in human populations and have formed two distinct lineages (Hu1 and Hu2). However, Hu2 exclusively includes H1N1 viruses and all human H3N2 are included in Hu1 (Figure (Figure1B).1B Although strains with the M gene in both avian lineages (Av1 and Av2) have been seen sporadically in humans, they have not been maintained in the population (blue characters in Av1 and Av2, Figure Figure1A1A Evolutionary Rate For evolutionary rate analysis, we included the sequences of only host-specific lineages and excluded other sequences such as those of the H5N1 influenza in humans (Figure (Figure1F.1F
Av2 of avian influenza A viruses showed the slowest evolutionary rate (1.63 × 10-4 substitutions per site per year). All human and swine Influenza A viruses had a significantly faster evolutionary rate than avian viruses (Table 2). In addition, evolutionary rates were significantly different even between lineages of same host. Hu2 has evolved more rapidly than Hu1, and Sw2 has evolved more rapidly than Sw1 (Figure (Figure22
Selective Pressures The selective pressures for the entire sequence (we defined the magnitude of the pressure as "ω") were 0.13 for the entire coding region of the M gene, 0.06 for M1, and 0.45 for M2 (Figure (Figure3).3
ω of the entire coding region of the M gene for human and swine influenza was significantly higher (no overlap of 95% confidence intervals) than that for the avian influenza (Figure (Figure3).3 Site-by-site Analyses Site-by-site (by each codon) analyses for human influenza were conducted by SLAC (the entire tree [eSLAC], internal branches [iSLAC], and terminal branches [tSLAC]), and FEL (the entire tree [eFEL] and internal branches [iFEL]) methods [45]. We conducted the analyses by testing hypotheses for the entire tree, internal branches, and terminal branches (See "Materials and methods"). "dN/dS" indicates the magnitude of selective pressure on each codon. When dN/dS on a certain codon is significantly greater than 1, the site is considered to be under significant positive selection. When dN/dS on a certain codon is significantly smaller than 1, the site is considered to be under significant negative selection. Figure Figure44
To define the evolutionary difference for each codon in human and avian influenza, we also calculated site-by-site selective pressures for avian influenza by eFEL. Consensus sequences of human and avian viruses were compared to identify major differences between these two hosts. We identified the sites at which consensus amino acids were different between the human and avian viruses and showed selective pressures (Figure (Figure66
Discussion The phylogenetic tree showed that the M gene of influenza A viruses has evolved independently in each host. It revealed host-specific lineages, which were compatible with other reports. In previous reports, Av1, Av2, Sw1, Sw2, and CE were named as Eurasian (Old World) avian, North American (New World) avian, classic (old) swine, European (avian-like) swine, and recent (avian-like) canine lineages, respectively [1,8,46,47]. Since the emergence of the Russian Flu, both H1N1 and H3N2 have been co-circulating in human populations and undergoing different evolutionary processes, which have resulted in two distinct human influenza lineages, Hu1 and Hu2 (Figure 1A, B After Spanish Flu, the same M gene has been maintained in human influenza, even after two pandemics (Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu) that were thought to have been generated by reassortment between avian and human influenza A viruses [1] (Figure (Figure1A1A There have been several sporadic infections with viruses from non-human lineages to humans, including the recent H5N1 infections in humans. However, these viruses were not maintained, and therefore, they disappeared from the human population without efficient transmission from human to human. In addition, it is implied that swine can be a "mixing vessel" in which human and avian viruses are reassorted to generate a human pandemic strain [1,56]. However, infections of strains with avian or human M genes in swine were also rare, and most of these viruses were not maintained in the swine population, except for the Sw2 lineage, in which viruses with the avian lineage M gene became established in the swine population. Our phylogenetic analysis showed that viruses were clustered in host-specific lineages. This suggests that the M gene may be host specific and viruses with an M gene from other hosts are difficult to replicate. It is possible that the M gene determines the host range through the interaction between M1 and vRNPs [13,14,57]. An M gene that can match with host-specific vRNPs may be needed to replicate and transmit in a certain host. In addition, many studies have shown the interaction between M1 protein and host proteins, such as RACK1, MAPK, and core histone [13,58-60]. The M gene may be directly and/or indirectly linked to host tropism of the virus. The evolutionary rate of the M gene was low in avian viruses compared to human and swine viruses (Figure (Figure22 Interestingly, evolutionary rates were significantly different between lineages of the same host (Table 2). The evolutionary rates of Hu2 and Sw2 were faster than Hu1 and Sw1, respectively. The evolution of the M gene might not only be controlled by host species. One possible explanation is that strains in a lineage that appeared more recently such as Hu2 or Sw2, have to evolve more rapidly in order to be adapted better to the host than strains in other pre-existing lineages (Hu1 or Sw1), which have already adapted to some extent. Social factors at the time when new lineages appeared such as the growth of the population and globalization may also facilitate a faster evolution. This may be the reason why the evolutionary rates of Hu2 and Sw2 are higher than those of Hu1 and Sw1, respectively (Figure (Figure2).2 The selective pressure is stronger in M2 than in M1 (Figure (Figure3)3 M1 is thought to play a vital role in the assembly and budding process [12,22,23]. Even minor mutations in M1 may cause a critical deficiency in virus replication. This could also explain why M1 is under strong negative pressure and why the selective pressure on M1 is smaller than that on M2 (Figure (Figure3).3 Position 219 in M1 is under positive selection in human influenza. It was also reported that this site was positively selected using a different method of calculation [62]. However, this site is under negative selection in avian influenza (Figure (Figure7).7 Positions 115 and 121 in M1, which are under significant negative selection in both human and avian influenza, had different consensus amino acids between these two hosts (Figure (Figure7).7 Position 27, which is a site in the transmembrane domain, is positively selected in M2. This site is associated with amantadine resistance [67]. The selective pressure on the site may be due to drug pressure. However, we could not show any positive pressure on position 31, which is associated with the recent spread of amantadine resistance [68]. Details on drug pressure and possible mechanism for recent surge of amantadine-resistant strains will be described in another manuscript (in preparation). The cytoplasmic domain of M2 is important for interaction with M1, genome packaging, and formation of virus particles [33-36]. Two sites are under positive selection in the cytoplasmic domain of M2 (positions 57 and 89, Table 3). In particular, position 57 showed different consensus amino acids between human and avian influenza (Figure (Figure7).7 In conclusion, the M gene of the influenza A virus has evolved with different selective pressures on M1 and M2 among different hosts. We found potentially important sites that may be related to host tropism and immune responses. These sites may be important for evolutionary processes in different hosts and host adaptation. However, Dunham et al. concluded that it is difficult to predict what specific genetic changes are needed for mammalian adaptation by comparing evolution of avian and swine influenza A viruses [47]. Further studies to clarify the specific role of each site identified in the present study are needed. Methods Sequence Data All data were obtained from the influenza sequence database (Influenza Virus Resource on: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/FLU.html, accessed on July 21, 2008) [70]. All sequencing data for the strains with a full-length M gene of any subtypes of influenza A from different host species including avian, canine, equine, human, and swine were included. Sequences derived from laboratory strains and duplicate strains verified by the strain name were excluded. A total of 5489 sequences were obtained [accession numbers are listed in additional file 1]. After excluding sequences containing ambiguous nucleotides, minor insertions, minor deletions (data for full length of coding region were used) or premature termination codons, a total of 5060 sequences were used in the analysis. Sequencing data were obtained together with information of the host, subtype, isolation year, and isolation place. The sequencing numbers for the influenza of each host are listed in Table 1. A multiple alignment of the nucleotide sequences, which did not contain any gaps, was constructed using ClustalW. Phylogenetic Tree Analysis A phylogenetic tree was inferred by RAxML [71]. The sequences data only for the coding region were used; i.e., at nucleotide position 26 to 1007. The basic sequential algorithm of RAxML is described elsewhere [72]. RAxML is one of the fastest and most accurate sequential phylogeny programs [73]. In this method, a rapid bootstrap search is combined with a rapid maximum likelihood search on the original alignment. The tree was constructed using Web-servers, RAxML BlackBox: "http://phylobench.vital-it.ch/raxml-bb/" [71]. The tree is color-coded according to hosts, subtypes, geographical information, or temporal information using FigTree (ver.1.1.2). Dataset of Influenza for Each Host Datasets for each host (avian, canine/equine, human, and swine hosts) were constructed. Sequences only from the host-specific lineage in the phylogenetic tree were used. For example, the H5N1 influenza A viruses that had infected humans were excluded from the analyses because humans were accidental hosts infected with the viruses of an avian lineage. Identical nucleotide sequences in the same dataset were removed before further analyses. Evolutionary Rate The evolutionary rate of each lineage was calculated. To calculate the rate, at least one sequence of each subtype in each year was selected from each dataset. Evolutionary rate was analyzed for the selected sequences as the number of substitutions per site per year compared to the oldest strain in each lineage with a linear regression model. The significance of the correlations was estimated using the Pearson correlation. Differential between slopes of the tangent of simple regression lines were tested by analysis of covariance. The analyses were conducted using SPSS (ver.17). Consensus Sequence Consensus amino acid sequences were determined as the sequence of amino acids that were identified most frequently at each position in a dataset, for human and avian influenza. Amino acid substitutions that were identified in more than 10% of the strains were regarded as major variants. Evaluation of Pressure (ω) Phylogenetic trees for each dataset by hosts were constructed using the maximum-likelihood method implemented in PhyML-aLRT [75] with the GTR model (four rate categories, all parameters estimated from the data). Selective pressure for each host population was calculated using the trees. Selective pressure was analyzed by HyPhy [76]. All analyses in HyPhy were conducted after identifying the best fit model from every possible time-reversible model (e.g., F81 and HKY85) according to Akaike's information criterion [45,77]. Global estimates (ω) of relative rates of non-synonymous (dN) and synonymous (dS) substitutions averaged over the entire alignment were compared to calculate the overall strength of selection [45]. Site-by-site Selective Pressure (dN/dS) Positive selection sites for human influenza were detected using two methods: single likelihood ancestor counting (SLAC) and fixed-effects likelihood (FEL). FEL was also conducted for avian influenza. The relative rates of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions were compared. Sites where dN/dS > 1 and dN/dS < 1 were inferred as positively and negatively selected, respectively. The details of the two methods is described elsewhere [45,78,79]. It was shown that many recent non-synonymous substitutions, i.e., those in the terminal branches of the tree, were not represented on internal branches [80]. At codons where internal substitutions are seen, the strength of selection along the terminal branches is high. Analyses were conducted exclusively by testing hypotheses for the entire tree, internal branches, and terminal branches. Briefly, in the SLAC method, the nucleotide and codon model parameter estimates are used to reconstruct the ancestral codon sequences at the internal nodes of the tree. The single most likely ancestral sequences are then fixed as known variables, and applied to infer the expected number of non-synonymous or synonymous substitutions that have occurred along each branch, for each codon position. SLAC is a substantially modified and improved derivative of the Suzuki-Gojobori method [44]. The FEL method is based on maximum-likelihood estimates. The FEL method estimates the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions on a site-by-site basis for the entire tree (eFEL) or only the interior branches (iFEL). iFEL is essentially the same as eFEL, except that selection is only tested along the internal branches of the phylogeny [80]. Uniprot ("http://www.uniprot.org/") and BioHealthBase ("http://www.biohealthbase.org/GSearch/home.do?decorator=influenza") were used to generate 3D crystal structures and to determine the location of epitope sites. Accession numbers: [GeneBank protein GI 89779323, strain A/Puerto Rico/8/34, PDB ID 1AA7, GeneBank sequence accession CY009445]. In the present study, we used a newly developed softwares RAxML [71] and HyPhy [76] for phylogenetic analyses. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and PhyML are widely used and are considered useful for manipulating data sets (hundreds) [2,81-84]. However, they cannot process huge data sets in order of thousands on an ordinary desktop computer. Therefore, we used a PC with Windows operating system and 3 GB RAM). PAML, which is a common software package for phylogenetic analyses such as the calculation of selective pressure using maximum likelihood [85], also failed occasionaly in analyzing large data sets. We therefore used the recently developed software, which overcomes these problems. The accuracy of this software has been confirmed [73,79,86]. Through site-by-site analyses, we identified more sites negatively or positively selected than those in a study by Suzuki [61]. This was ascribed to a difference in the number of data sets and/or algorithms, as we analyzed ten times more than the number analyzed in his study. List of abbreviations vRNP: viral ribonucleoprotein. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions YF carried out all analyses and drafted the manuscript. AS, TK, and HO participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Additional file 1 List of accession numbers. The file contains list of accession numbers of sequencing data we analyzed. Click here for file(48K, txt) Acknowledgements We are indebted to Dr. Jianzhi George Zhang (University of Michigan, USA) and Dr. Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond (University of California, San Diego, USA) for their kind advice regarding the analyses. Financial support for this study was provided by Health Labor Sciences Research Grant 20-005-OH from The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, Japan. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Intervirology. 2007; 50(4):287-95.
[Intervirology. 2007]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 10; 104(15):6283-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]J Virol. 1991 Oct; 65(10):5491-8.
[J Virol. 1991]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jul; 78(7):4170-4.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981]Virus Res. 2004 Dec; 106(2):147-65.
[Virus Res. 2004]Virology. 2005 Feb 5; 332(1):329-36.
[Virology. 2005]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Annu Rev Microbiol. 2008; 62():403-24.
[Annu Rev Microbiol. 2008]J Virol. 2005 Jun; 79(11):6644-54.
[J Virol. 2005]Drug News Perspect. 2009 Mar; 22(2):80-92.
[Drug News Perspect. 2009]Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Oct; 16(10):1315-28.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1999]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]J Virol. 1991 Oct; 65(10):5491-8.
[J Virol. 1991]Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 Nov; 2(11):909-14.
[Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004]J Virol. 2009 Jun; 83(11):5485-94.
[J Virol. 2009]J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Mar; 47(3):841-4.
[J Clin Microbiol. 2009]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Feb 16; 96(4):1651-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Science. 1997 Mar 21; 275(5307):1793-6.
[Science. 1997]J Virol. 2002 Feb; 76(4):1781-6.
[J Virol. 2002]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Virology. 1985 Dec; 147(2):287-94.
[Virology. 1985]Virology. 2005 Feb 5; 332(1):329-36.
[Virology. 2005]Annu Rev Microbiol. 2008; 62():403-24.
[Annu Rev Microbiol. 2008]Virology. 2001 Sep 1; 287(2):405-16.
[Virology. 2001]Microbes Infect. 2006 Mar; 8(3):823-33.
[Microbes Infect. 2006]Nat Cell Biol. 2001 Mar; 3(3):301-5.
[Nat Cell Biol. 2001]Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar; 56(1):152-79.
[Microbiol Rev. 1992]Immunol Rev. 1997 Oct; 159():95-103.
[Immunol Rev. 1997]J Virol. 1990 Mar; 64(3):1375-7.
[J Virol. 1990]J Virol. 2005 Jun; 79(11):6644-54.
[J Virol. 2005]J Virol. 1988 Aug; 62(8):2762-72.
[J Virol. 1988]Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Oct; 23(10):1902-11.
[Mol Biol Evol. 2006]Virus Res. 2003 Sep; 95(1-2):3-12.
[Virus Res. 2003]J Virol. 2000 Dec; 74(24):11538-47.
[J Virol. 2000]J Virol. 2001 Jul; 75(13):6154-65.
[J Virol. 2001]Virol J. 2008 Mar 7; 5():40.
[Virol J. 2008]J Clin Invest. 2008 Oct; 118(10):3478-90.
[J Clin Invest. 2008]J Exp Med. 1987 Feb 1; 165(2):408-16.
[J Exp Med. 1987]J Virol. 1998 Nov; 72(11):8682-9.
[J Virol. 1998]J Virol. 1987 Feb; 61(2):239-46.
[J Virol. 1987]J Gen Virol. 1997 Jul; 78 ( Pt 7)():1589-96.
[J Gen Virol. 1997]Nucleic Acids Res. 1989 Nov 11; 17(21):8569-80.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1989]J Gen Virol. 1994 Jan; 75 ( Pt 1)():37-42.
[J Gen Virol. 1994]J Virol. 1996 Dec; 70(12):8639-44.
[J Virol. 1996]EMBO J. 1985 Nov; 4(11):3021-4.
[EMBO J. 1985]Lancet. 2005 Oct 1; 366(9492):1175-81.
[Lancet. 2005]J Virol. 2008 Oct; 82(20):10059-70.
[J Virol. 2008]J Virol. 2009 Apr; 83(7):3384-8.
[J Virol. 2009]J Virol. 2006 Aug; 80(16):8178-89.
[J Virol. 2006]J Virol. 2005 Mar; 79(6):3595-605.
[J Virol. 2005]J Virol. 2009 Jun; 83(11):5485-94.
[J Virol. 2009]J Virol. 2008 Jan; 82(2):596-601.
[J Virol. 2008]Syst Biol. 2008 Oct; 57(5):758-71.
[Syst Biol. 2008]J Mol Evol. 1981; 17(6):368-76.
[J Mol Evol. 1981]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 27; 101(30):11030-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Syst Biol. 2006 Aug; 55(4):539-52.
[Syst Biol. 2006]Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 1; 21(5):676-9.
[Bioinformatics. 2005]J Mol Evol. 1984; 20(1):86-93.
[J Mol Evol. 1984]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 15; 105(28):9685-90.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008]Mol Biol Evol. 2005 May; 22(5):1208-22.
[Mol Biol Evol. 2005]PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 Jun 23; 2(6):e62.
[PLoS Comput Biol. 2006]Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Oct; 16(10):1315-28.
[Mol Biol Evol. 1999]PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 Jun 23; 2(6):e62.
[PLoS Comput Biol. 2006]Syst Biol. 2008 Oct; 57(5):758-71.
[Syst Biol. 2008]Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 1; 21(5):676-9.
[Bioinformatics. 2005]Intervirology. 2007; 50(4):287-95.
[Intervirology. 2007]Science. 2008 Apr 18; 320(5874):340-6.
[Science. 2008]Comput Appl Biosci. 1997 Oct; 13(5):555-6.
[Comput Appl Biosci. 1997]