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

Publication 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

  • 5,895
    Page views
  • 935
    Downloads
  • 123
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Dakota E McCoy, Benjamin Goulet-Scott ... John Kartesz
    Tools and Resources

    Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees-pillars of urban forests - improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about city tree communities as ecosystems, particularly regarding spatial composition, species diversity, tree health, and the abundance of introduced species. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities with detailed information on location, health, species, and whether a species is introduced or naturally occurring (i.e., 'native'). We further designed new tools to analyze spatial clustering and the abundance of introduced species. We show that trees significantly cluster by species in 98% of cities, potentially increasing pest vulnerability (even in species-diverse cities). Further, introduced species significantly homogenize tree communities across cities, while naturally occurring trees (i.e., 'native' trees) comprise 0.51%-87.3% (median=45.6%) of city tree populations. Introduced species are more common in drier cities, and climate also shapes tree species diversity across urban forests. Parks have greater tree species diversity than urban settings. Compared to past work which focused on canopy cover and species richness, we show the importance of analyzing spatial composition and introduced species in urban ecosystems (and we develop new tools and datasets to do so). Future work could analyze city trees and socio-demographic variables or bird, insect, and plant diversity (e.g., from citizen-science initiatives). With these tools, we may evaluate existing city trees in new, nuanced ways and design future plantings to maximize resistance to pests and climate change. We depend on city trees.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Laura Katharine Hayward, Guy Sella
    Research Article

    Polygenic adaptation is thought to be ubiquitous, yet remains poorly understood. Here, we model this process analytically, in the plausible setting of a highly polygenic, quantitative trait that experiences a sudden shift in the fitness optimum. We show how the mean phenotype changes over time, depending on the effect sizes of loci that contribute to variance in the trait, and characterize the allele dynamics at these loci. Notably, we describe the two phases of the allele dynamics: The first is a rapid phase, in which directional selection introduces small frequency differences between alleles whose effects are aligned with or opposed to the shift, ultimately leading to small differences in their probability of fixation during a second, longer phase, governed by stabilizing selection. As we discuss, key results should hold in more general settings, and have important implications for efforts to identify the genetic basis of adaptation in humans and other species.