Virus nomenclature below the species level: a standardized nomenclature for laboratory animal-adapted strains and variants of viruses assigned to the family Filoviridae

Abstract

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) organizes the classification of viruses into taxa, but is not responsible for the nomenclature for taxa members. International experts groups, such as the ICTV Study Groups, recommend the classification and naming of viruses and their strains, variants, and isolates. The ICTV Filoviridae Study Group has recently introduced an updated classification and nomenclature for filoviruses. Subsequently, and together with numerous other filovirus experts, a consistent nomenclature for their natural genetic variants and isolates was developed that aims at simplifying the retrieval of sequence data from electronic databases. This is a first important step toward a viral genome annotation standard as sought by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Here, this work is extended to include filoviruses obtained in the laboratory by artificial selection through passage in laboratory hosts. The previously developed template for natural filovirus genetic variant naming (<virus name> <isolation host-suffix>/<country of sampling>/<year of sampling>/<genetic variant designation>-<isolate designation>) is retained, but it is proposed to adapt the type of information added to each field for laboratory animal-adapted variants. For instance, the full-length designation of an Ebola virus Mayinga variant adapted at the State Research Center for Virology and Biotechnology “Vector” to cause disease in guinea pigs after seven passages would be akin to “Ebola virus VECTOR/C.porcellus-lab/COD/1976/Mayinga-GPA-P7”. As was proposed for the names of natural filovirus variants, we suggest using the full-length designation in databases, as well as in the method section of publications. Shortened designations (such as “EBOV VECTOR/C.por/COD/76/May-GPA-P7”) and abbreviations (such as “EBOV/May-GPA-P7”) could be used in the remainder of the text depending on how critical it is to convey information contained in the full-length name. “EBOV” would suffice if only one EBOV strain/variant/isolate is addressed.

Dendrimer-RNA nanoparticles generate protective immunity against lethal Ebola, H1N1 influenza, and Toxoplasma gondii challenges with a single dose

“…Twenty-eight days postvaccination, animals were challenged with a lethal dose of mouse-adapted EBOV (ma-EBOV) (72). Although all control animals succumbed to EBOV infection by day 7, 100% protection was conferred by 4.0-μg and 40-μg Ebola MDNP prime-boost vaccinations, with no EBOV clinical pathological findings observed over the course of the study (Fig.…”

“…Mice were inoculated with a target titer of 1,000 pfu of ma-EBOV (72). All studies were conducted in the USAMRIID Biosafety Level 4 containment facility.…”

Development and Characterization of a Guinea Pig-Adapted Sudan Virus

“…The progenitor isolate used for the initial inoculations in guinea pigs was a stock preparation from the original clinical sample that had previously been passaged once in guinea pigs and twice on VeroE6 cells. This progenitor virus was designated Sudan virus/C.porcellus-lab/SSD/ 1976/Nzara-Boneface (SUDV-p), in accordance with established guidelines (14,15). The sequence is not identical to that of wild-type SUDV; thus, the viral sequence of SUDV-p has been deposited in GenBank.…”

Bioinformatics Approach to Screening and Developing Drug against Ebola

“…Ebola virus (EBOV), Tai Forest virus (TAFV), Reston virus (RESTV), Sudan virus (SUDV), and Bundibugyo virus (BDBV) are the virus making up the Ebolavirus genus [10]. EBOV and SUDV come as the most frequent outbreak-causing virus which has the case-fatality rate of 76 and 55% (CI 95%), respectively [11].…”