| Title |
Genome sequencing and analysis of a granulovirus isolated from the Asiatic rice leafroller, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virologica Sinica, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12250-015-3658-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shan Zhang, Zheng Zhu, Shifeng Sun, Qijin Chen, Fei Deng, Kai Yang |
| Abstract |
The complete genome of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis granulovirus (CnmeGV) from a serious migratory rice pest, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), was sequenced using the Roche 454 Genome Sequencer FLX system (GS FLX) with shotgun strategy and assembled by Roche GS De Novo assembler software. Its circular double-stranded genome is 111,246 bp in size with a high A+T content of 64.8% and codes for 118 putative open reading frames (ORFs). It contains 37 conserved baculovirus core ORFs, 13 unique ORFs, 26 ORFs that were found in all Lepidoptera baculoviruses and 42 common ORFs. The analysis of nucleotide sequence repeats revealed that the CnmeGV genome differs from the rest of sequenced GVs by a 23 kb and a 17kb gene block inversions, and does not contain any typical homologous region (hr) except for a region of non-hr-like sequence. Chitinase and cathepsin genes, which are reported to have major roles in the liquefaction of the hosts, were not found in the CnmeGV genome, which explains why CnmeGV infected insects do not show the phenotype of typical liquefaction. Phylogenetic analysis, based on the 37 core baculovirus genes, indicates that CnmeGV is closely related to Adoxophyes orana granulovirus. The genome analysis would contribute to the functional research of CnmeGV, and would benefit to the utilization of CnmeGV as pest control reagent for rice production. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Other | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 30% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
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 30 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,352,477
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Virologica Sinica
#287
of 571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,953
of 388,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virologica Sinica
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 388,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.