2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00705-016-2848-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A proposal to rationalize within-species plant virus nomenclature: benefits and implications of inaction

Abstract: Current approaches used to name within-species, plant virus phylogenetic groups are often misleading and illogical. They involve names based on biological properties, sequence differences and geographical, country or placeassociation designations, or any combination of these. This type of nomenclature is becoming increasingly unsustainable as numbers of sequences of the same virus from new host species and different parts of the world increase. Moreover, this increase is accelerating as world trade and agricul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, an analysis based on pairwise comparisons of DNA-A nucleotide sequences of ToLCNDV isolates reported so far and following ICTV demarcation criteria for begomoviruses [3] suggested the presence of a novel strain spreading in the western Mediterranean Basin. Furthermore, several additional strains might be present in the population, that await further study before names are given [37]. The presence of three differentiated strains within the ToLCNDV complex already has been suggested by Jyothsna et al on the basis of nucleotide sequence identity [38] after the analysis of a more limited number of sequences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, an analysis based on pairwise comparisons of DNA-A nucleotide sequences of ToLCNDV isolates reported so far and following ICTV demarcation criteria for begomoviruses [3] suggested the presence of a novel strain spreading in the western Mediterranean Basin. Furthermore, several additional strains might be present in the population, that await further study before names are given [37]. The presence of three differentiated strains within the ToLCNDV complex already has been suggested by Jyothsna et al on the basis of nucleotide sequence identity [38] after the analysis of a more limited number of sequences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus the two nomenclatural systems, host genetics versus virus genetics, mostly coincide, but not always. For example, PVY D belongs to phylogroup C, non-recombinant PVY z isolates to phylogroup O (Jones and Kehoe 2016; Kehoe and Jones 2016), and recombinant PVY z isolates to R2 (Kerlan et al. 2011; Karasev and Gray 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as more genomes have been sequenced and more potato hypersensitivity genes found (Singh et al 2008; Moury 2010; Karasev et al 2011; Karasev and Gray 2013; Jones 2014; Rowley, Gray, and Karasev 2015; Kehoe and Jones 2016), continued use of the same names for biological and phylogenetic groups has proved to be increasingly confusing due to the lack of complete coincidence between them. A new strain nomenclature system for sub-dividing the phylogenetic groups using Latinised numerals has therefore been proposed (Jones 2014; Jones and Kehoe 2016; Kehoe and Jones 2016). Their groupings correlate with the five broad ‘phylogroups’ we discuss in this article; the traditional C, O, and N groups plus two groups of recombinants, R1 and R2.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%