The contrasting phylodynamics of human influenza B viruses

  1. Dhanasekaran Vijaykrishna  Is a corresponding author
  2. Edward C Holmes
  3. Udayan Joseph
  4. Mathieu Fourment
  5. Yvonne C F Su
  6. Rebecca Halpin
  7. Raphael T C Lee
  8. Yi-Mo Deng
  9. Vithiagaran Gunalan
  10. Xudong Lin
  11. Timothy B Stockwell
  12. Nadia B Fedorova
  13. Bin Zhou
  14. Natalie Spirason
  15. Denise Kühnert
  16. Veronika Boskova
  17. Tanja Stadler
  18. Anna-Maria Costa
  19. Dominic E Dwyer
  20. Q Sue Huang
  21. Lance C Jennings
  22. William Rawlinson
  23. Sheena G Sullivan
  24. Aeron C Hurt
  25. Sebastian Maurer-Stroh
  26. David E Wentworth
  27. Gavin J D Smith
  28. Ian Barr
  1. Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore
  2. University of Sydney, Australia
  3. J Craig Venter Institute, United States
  4. Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
  5. Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Australia
  6. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland
  7. Royal Children's Hospital, Australia
  8. Westmead Hospital, Australia
  9. National Centre for Biosecurity and Infectious Disease, New Zealand
  10. Canterbury Health Laboratories, New Zealand
  11. Prince of Wales Hospital, Australia
  12. Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, United States

Abstract

A complex interplay of viral, host and ecological factors shape the spatio-temporal incidence and evolution of human influenza viruses. Although considerable attention has been paid to influenza A viruses, a lack of equivalent data means that an integrated evolutionary and epidemiological framework has until now not been available for influenza B viruses, despite their significant disease burden. Through the analysis of over 900 full genomes from an epidemiological collection of more than 26,000 strains from Australia and New Zealand, we reveal fundamental differences in the phylodynamics of the two co-circulating lineages of influenza B virus (Victoria and Yamagata), showing that their individual dynamics are determined by a complex relationship between virus transmission, age of infection and receptor binding preference. In sum, this work identifies new factors that are important determinants of influenza B evolution and epidemiology.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Dhanasekaran Vijaykrishna

    Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
    For correspondence
    vijay.dhanasekaran@duke-nus.edu.sg
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Edward C Holmes

    Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Udayan Joseph

    Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Mathieu Fourment

    Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yvonne C F Su

    Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Rebecca Halpin

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raphael T C Lee

    Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yi-Mo Deng

    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Vithiagaran Gunalan

    Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Xudong Lin

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Timothy B Stockwell

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nadia B Fedorova

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Bin Zhou

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Natalie Spirason

    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Denise Kühnert

    Department of Environmental Systems Science, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Veronika Boskova

    Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Basel, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Tanja Stadler

    Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Anna-Maria Costa

    Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Dominic E Dwyer

    Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Q Sue Huang

    Institute of Environmental Science and Research, National Centre for Biosecurity and Infectious Disease, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Lance C Jennings

    Microbiology Department, Canterbury Health Laboratories, Christchurch, New Zealand
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. William Rawlinson

    Virology Division, SEALS Microbiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Sheena G Sullivan

    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Aeron C Hurt

    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  25. Sebastian Maurer-Stroh

    Bioinformatics Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  26. David E Wentworth

    J Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  27. Gavin J D Smith

    Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  28. Ian Barr

    World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard A Neher, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: October 6, 2014
  2. Accepted: January 15, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 16, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 11, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Vijaykrishna et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,021
    views
  • 1,004
    downloads
  • 152
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Dhanasekaran Vijaykrishna
  2. Edward C Holmes
  3. Udayan Joseph
  4. Mathieu Fourment
  5. Yvonne C F Su
  6. Rebecca Halpin
  7. Raphael T C Lee
  8. Yi-Mo Deng
  9. Vithiagaran Gunalan
  10. Xudong Lin
  11. Timothy B Stockwell
  12. Nadia B Fedorova
  13. Bin Zhou
  14. Natalie Spirason
  15. Denise Kühnert
  16. Veronika Boskova
  17. Tanja Stadler
  18. Anna-Maria Costa
  19. Dominic E Dwyer
  20. Q Sue Huang
  21. Lance C Jennings
  22. William Rawlinson
  23. Sheena G Sullivan
  24. Aeron C Hurt
  25. Sebastian Maurer-Stroh
  26. David E Wentworth
  27. Gavin J D Smith
  28. Ian Barr
(2015)
The contrasting phylodynamics of human influenza B viruses
eLife 4:e05055.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05055

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05055

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Théo Constant, F Stephen Dobson ... Sylvain Giroud
    Research Article

    Seasonal animal dormancy is widely interpreted as a physiological response for surviving energetic challenges during the harshest times of the year (the physiological constraint hypothesis). However, there are other mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the timing of animal dormancy, that is, entry into and emergence from hibernation (i.e. dormancy phenology). Survival advantages of dormancy that have been proposed are reduced risks of predation and competition (the ‘life-history’ hypothesis), but comparative tests across animal species are few. Using the phylogenetic comparative method applied to more than 20 hibernating mammalian species, we found support for both hypotheses as explanations for the phenology of dormancy. In accordance with the life-history hypotheses, sex differences in hibernation emergence and immergence were favored by the sex difference in reproductive effort. In addition, physiological constraint may influence the trade-off between survival and reproduction such that low temperatures and precipitation, as well as smaller body mass, influence sex differences in phenology. We also compiled initial evidence that ectotherm dormancy may be (1) less temperature dependent than previously thought and (2) associated with trade-offs consistent with the life-history hypothesis. Thus, dormancy during non-life-threatening periods that are unfavorable for reproduction may be more widespread than previously thought.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Zhuqing Wang, Yue Wang ... Wei Yan
    Research Article

    Despite rapid evolution across eutherian mammals, the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs are located in a region flanked by two highly conserved protein-coding genes (SLITRK2 and FMR1) on the X chromosome. Intriguingly, these miRNAs are predominantly expressed in the testis, suggesting a potential role in spermatogenesis and male fertility. Here, we report that the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs were derived from the MER91C DNA transposons. Selective inactivation of individual miRNAs or clusters caused no discernible defects, but simultaneous ablation of five clusters containing 19 members of the MIR-506 family led to reduced male fertility in mice. Despite normal sperm counts, motility, and morphology, the KO sperm were less competitive than wild-type sperm when subjected to a polyandrous mating scheme. Transcriptomic and bioinformatic analyses revealed that these X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs, in addition to targeting a set of conserved genes, have more targets that are critical for spermatogenesis and embryonic development during evolution. Our data suggest that the MIR-506 family miRNAs function to enhance sperm competitiveness and reproductive fitness of the male by finetuning gene expression during spermatogenesis.