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.

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

  • 6,062
    views
  • 1,019
    downloads
  • 162
    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. Evolutionary Biology
    Zofia Dubicka, Jarosław Tyszka ... Ulf Bickmeyer
    Research Article

    Living organisms control the formation of mineral skeletons and other structures through biomineralization. Major phylogenetic groups usually consistently follow a single biomineralization pathway. Foraminifera, which are very efficient marine calcifiers, making a substantial contribution to global carbonate production and global carbon sequestration, are regarded as an exception. This phylum has been commonly thought to follow two contrasting models of either in situ ‘mineralization of extracellular matrix’ attributed to hyaline rotaliid shells, or ‘mineralization within intracellular vesicles’ attributed to porcelaneous miliolid shells. Our previous results on rotaliids along with those on miliolids in this paper question such a wide divergence of biomineralization pathways within the same phylum of Foraminifera. We have found under a high-resolution scanning electron microscopy (SEM) that precipitation of high-Mg calcitic mesocrystals in porcelaneous shells takes place in situ and form a dense, chaotic meshwork of needle-like crystallites. We have not observed calcified needles that already precipitated in the transported vesicles, what challenges the previous model of miliolid mineralization. Hence, Foraminifera probably utilize less divergent calcification pathways, following the recently discovered biomineralization principles. Mesocrystalline chamber walls in both models are therefore most likely created by intravesicular accumulation of pre-formed liquid amorphous mineral phase deposited and crystallized within the extracellular organic matrix enclosed in a biologically controlled privileged space by active pseudopodial structures. Both calcification pathways evolved independently in the Paleozoic and are well conserved in two clades that represent different chamber formation modes.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Philipp H Schiffer, Paschalis Natsidis ... Maximilian J Telford
    Research Article

    The evolutionary origins of Bilateria remain enigmatic. One of the more enduring proposals highlights similarities between a cnidarian-like planula larva and simple acoel-like flatworms. This idea is based in part on the view of the Xenacoelomorpha as an outgroup to all other bilaterians which are themselves designated the Nephrozoa (protostomes and deuterostomes). Genome data can provide important comparative data and help to understand the evolution and biology of enigmatic species better. Here we assemble and analyse the genome of the simple, marine xenacoelomorph Xenoturbella bocki, a key species for our understanding of early bilaterian evolution. Our highly contiguous genome assembly of X. bocki has a size of ~111 Mbp in 18 chromosome like scaffolds, with repeat content and intron, exon and intergenic space comparable to other bilaterian invertebrates. We find X. bocki to have a similar number of genes to other bilaterians and to have retained ancestral metazoan synteny. Key bilaterian signalling pathways are also largely complete and most bilaterian miRNAs are present. Overall, we conclude that X. bocki has a complex genome typical of bilaterians, which does not reflect the apparent simplicity of its body plan that has been so important to proposals that the Xenacoelomorpha are the simple sister group of the rest of the Bilateria.