One hundred eighteen papillomavirus (PV) types have been completely described, and a yet higher number of presumed new types have been detected by preliminary data such as subgenomic amplicons. The classification of this diverse group of viruses, which include important human pathogens, has been debated for three decades. This article describes the higher-order PV taxonomy following the general criteria established by the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), reviews the literature of the lower order taxa, lists all known "PV types", and interprets their phylogenetic relationship. PVs are a taxonomic family of their own, Papillomaviridae, unrelated to the polyomaviruses. Higher-order phylogenetic assemblages of PV types, such as the "genital human PVs", are considered a genus, the latter group, for example, the genus "Alpha-Papillomavirus". Lower-order assemblages of PV types within each genus are treated as species because they are phylogenetically closely related, but while they have distinct genomic sequences, they have identical or very similar biological or pathological properties. The taxonomic status of PV types, subtypes, and variants remains unchanged and is based on the traditional criteria that the sequence of their L1 genes should be at least 10%, 2-10%, and maximally 2% dissimilar from one another.

We present an expansion of the classification of the family Papillomaviridae, which now contains 29 genera formed by 189 papillomavirus (PV) types isolated from humans (120 types), non-human mammals, birds and reptiles (64, 3 and 2 types, respectively). To accommodate the number of PV genera exceeding the Greek alphabet, the prefix “dyo” is used, continuing after the Omega-PVs with Dyodelta-PVs. The current set of human PVs are contained within five genera, whereas mammalian, avian and reptile PVs are contained within 20, 3 and 1 genera, respectively. We propose standardizations to the names of a number of animal PVs. As prerequisite for a coherent nomenclature of animal PVs, we propose founding a Reference Center for Animal PVs. We discuss that based on emerging species concepts derived from genome sequences, PV types could be promoted to the taxonomic level of species, but do not recommend implementing this change at the current time.

The Papillomaviridae is a family of small, non-enveloped viruses with double-stranded DNA genomes of 5 748 to 8 607 bp. Their classification is based on pairwise nucleotide sequence identity across the L1 open reading frame. Members of the Papillomaviridae primarily infect mucosal and keratinised epithelia, and have been isolated from fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Despite a long co-evolutionary history with their hosts, some papillomaviruses are pathogens of their natural host species. This is a summary of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) Report on the taxonomy of the Papillomaviridae, which is available at http://www.ictv.global/report/papillomaviridae.

Among the more than one hundred formally described human papillomavirus (HPV) types, 18 are referred to as high-risk HPV types due to their association with anogenital cancer. Despite pathogenic similarities, these types form three remotely related taxonomic groups. One of these groups is called HPV species 9 and is formed by HPV-16, the most common and best-studied type, together with HPV-31, -33, -35, -52, -58, and -67. Previous worldwide comparisons of HPV-16 samples showed about 2% nucleotide diversity between isolates, which were subsequently termed variants. The distribution of divergent variants has been found to correlate frequently with the geographic origin and the ethnicity of the infected patients and led to the concept of unique African, European, Asian, and Native American HPV-16 variants. In the current study, we address the question of whether geography and ethnicity also correlate with sequence variations found for HPV-31, -35, -52, and -58. This was done by sequencing the long control region in samples derived from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and from immigrant populations in North and South America. We observed maximal divergence between any two variants within each of these four HPV types ranging from 1.8 to 3.6% based on nucleotide exchanges and, occasionally, on insertions and deletions. Similar to the case with HPV-16, these mutations are not random but indicate a relationship between the variants in form of phylogenetic trees. An interesting example is presented by a 16-bp insert in select variants of HPV-35, which appears to have given rise to additional variants by nucleotide exchanges within the insert. All trees showed distinct phylogenetic topologies, ranging from dichotomic branching in the case of HPV-31 to star phylogenies of the other three types. No clear similarities between these types or between these types and HPV-16 exist. While variant branches in some types were specific for Europe, Africa, or East Asia, none of the four trees reflected human evolution and spread to the extent illustrated by HPV-16. One possible explanation is that the rare HPV types that we studied spread and thereby diversified more slowly than the more abundant HPV-16 and may have established much of today's variant diversity already before the worldwide spread of humans 100,000 years ago. Most variants had prototypic amino acid sequences within the E6 oncoprotein and a segment of the L1 capsid protein. Some had one, two, or three amino acid substitutions in these regions, which might indicate biological and pathogenic diversity between the variants of each HPV type.The phylogeny-based taxonomy of papillomaviruses (PVs) places these viruses into a separate family which is further divided into genera and species (11). On lower taxonomic levels, PVs are classified as types, subtypes, and variants. Basic and clinical research normally addresses PVs on these lower three levels of taxonomy. More than one hundred different human papillomavirus (HPV) types have been formally described (1, 9, 11). Eighteen HPV t...

Human papillomavirus types 2 (HPV-2), HPV-27, and HPV-57, are three closely related viruses within the phylogenetic supergroup formed by the remotely related genital papillomaviruses. In contrast to this phylogenetic association, these three viruses are most often found in common warts at nongenital sites, but also occasionally in genital warts and mucosal lesions of the nasopharyngeal cavity. We studied the genomic diversity of HPV sequences in skin warts presumably caused by these viruses. These biopsies were sampled from 75 patients living in Germany, Japan, or Singapore. Among 27 warts with HPV-2, we found seven new genomic variants and among 32 with HPV-57, eight new variants. In both cases, we did not detect the original prototype genomes. In contrast, 13 of 16 warts with HPV-27 contained the prototype genome, and only one new variant was found in three patients. We did not find variants clearly intermediate between any two types, although HPV-2 and HPV-27 are among the most closely related of the extent HPV types. We also did not detect novel HPV types, although the samples were examined with polymerase chain reaction protocols that would have detected remotely related HPVs. So we propose that the phylogenetic group formed by HPV-2, HPV-27, and HPV-57 has no or only very are additional members. One of the HPV-57 variants found, HPV-57-G44, was most likely identical to the subtype HPV-57b, previously proposed to be associated with nasal neoplasia, but found here frequently in common skin warts. Our publication establishes a foundation for pathological and phylogenetic comparisons of HPV types in skin warts.