↓ Skip to main content

Relative abundance of deformed wing virus, Varroa destructor virus 1, and their recombinants in honey bees (Apis mellifera) assessed by kmer analysis of public RNA-Seq data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relative abundance of deformed wing virus, Varroa destructor virus 1, and their recombinants in honey bees (Apis mellifera) assessed by kmer analysis of public RNA-Seq data
Published in
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jip.2017.07.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Scott Cornman

Abstract

Deformed wing virus (DWV) is a major pathogen of concern to apiculture, and recent reports have indicated the local predominance and potential virulence of recombinants between DWV and a related virus, Varroa destructor virus 1 (VDV). However, little is known about the frequency and titer of VDV and recombinants relative to DWV generally. In this study, I assessed the relative occurrence and titer of DWV and VDV in public RNA-seq accessions of honey bee using a rapid, kmer-based approach. Three recombinant types were detectable graphically and corroborated by de novo assembly. Recombination breakpoints did not disrupt the capsid-encoding region, consistent with previous reports, and both VDV- and DWV-derived capsids were observed in recombinant backgrounds. High abundance of VDV kmers was largely restricted to recombinant forms. Non-metric multidimensional scaling identified genotypic clusters among DWV isolates, which was corroborated by read mapping and consensus generation. The recently described DWV-C lineage was not detected in the searched accessions. The data further highlight the utility of high-throughput sequencing to monitor viral polymorphisms and statistically test biological predictors of titer, and point to the need for consistent methodologies and sampling schemes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
#1,543
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,147
of 326,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Invertebrate Pathology
#20
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.