Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 May 16;19(5):e0303838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303838

Analysis of a new negevirus-like sequence from Bemisia tabaci unveils a potential new taxon linking nelorpi- and centiviruses

Diego F Quito-Avila 1,2,*, Edison Reyes-Proaño 3, Gerardo Armijos-Capa 4, Ricardo I Alcalá Briseño 5, Robert Alvarez 6, Francisco F Flores 7,8,*
Editor: Rhys Harold Parry9
PMCID: PMC11098327  PMID: 38753834

Abstract

This study presents the complete genome sequence of a novel nege-like virus identified in whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci MEAM1), provisionally designated as whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1). The virus possesses a single-stranded RNA genome comprising 11,848 nucleotides, organized into four open reading frames (ORFs). These ORFs encode the putative RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase (RdRp, ORF 1), a glycoprotein (ORF 2), a structural protein with homology to those in the SP24 family, (ORF 3), and a protein of unknown function (ORF 4). Phylogenetic analysis focusing on RdRp and SP24 amino acid sequences revealed a close relationship between WfNgV1 and Bemisia tabaci negevirus 1, a negevirus sequence recently discovered in whiteflies from Israel. Both viruses form a clade sharing a most recent common ancestor with the proposed nelorpivirus and centivirus taxa. The putative glycoprotein from ORF 2 and SP24 (ORF 3) of WfNgV1 exhibit the characteristic topologies previously reported for negevirus counterparts. This marks the first reported negevirus-like sequence from whiteflies in the Americas.

Introduction

Negeviruses comprise a group of arthropod-infecting viruses with monopartite single-stranded (+) RNA genomes. The generic name derives from the prototype Negev virus (strain E0239) discovered in Anopheles coustani from the Negev Desert in Israel [1]. Negeviruses have been found all over the world in several bloodsucking arthropod species in the genera Anopheles, Culex, Lutzomyia, Aedes, Armigeres, Mansonia, Wyeomyia, Trichoprosopon, Coquillettidia, Psorophora, Toxorhychites, Ochlerotatus, Uranotaeneia, and Deinocerites [111]. In recent years, however, the spectrum of natural hosts for nege-like viruses has expanded to encompass agriculturally significant insects like aphids, thrips, spider mites, and leafhoppers [1216].

The genomes of negeviruses, spanning approximately 9.5 kb, are structured into three open reading frames (ORFs) and possess poly (A) tails. ORF 1 encodes the presumed viral replicase, a protein of around 260 kDa that encompasses methyltransferase (MTR), helicase (HEL), and RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase (RdRp) domains. ORF 2 encodes a hypothetical glycoprotein (G) of about 46 kDa, while ORF 3 codes for a putative virion membrane protein of approximately 24 kDa, also known as structural protein of 24 kDa (SP24, Conserved Domain Database PF16504) [6,8,17,18]. Phylogenetic analyses based on RdRp sequences from negeviruses and nege-like viruses (collectively referred to as negevirids) have delineated two distinct, well-defined sister clades, termed nelorpivirus (derived from Negevirus, Loreto, and Piura viruses) and sandewavirus (named after Santana, Dezidougou, and Wallerfield viruses) [4,6,19]. Notably, a discernible evolutionary connection has been established between negevirids and plant-infecting viruses belonging to the family Kitaviridae, as evidenced by analyses involving both RdRp and SP24, the latter also identified in chroparaviruses, an insect-infecting virus taxon distantly related to nege/kitavirids [1,7,13,18,20,21]. Therefore, newly identified nege/kitavirids offer valuable insights into comprehending the evolutionary trajectories of these viruses, including their cross-kingdom transmissions and adaptive processes.

This investigation introduces, for the first time, the complete genomic sequence analysis of a novel negevirid discovered in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 (Gennadius), one of the most widely distributed plant-feeding insects [22]. Through comprehensive genome comparisons and phylogenetic analyses, we elucidate its evolutionary connections with other nege/kitavirids known to infect both arthropods and plants.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This research does not contain any essays involving human participants or animals. Field work and insect collections were carried out in strict accordance with the Genetic Resource Access Permit # MAE–DNB–CM–2018–0098 granted by the Department of Biodiversity of the Ecuadorean Ministry of the Environment.

Virus source and high-throughput sequencing (HTS)

Ten adult whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci, MEAM1) were collected from papaya plants in a commercial orchard in Santa Elena, a coastal province of Ecuador. Specimens were immersed in 70% ethanol for transport and stored at -20°C until processing. The ten whiteflies were pooled and subjected to total RNA extraction using the PureLinkTM RNA Kit following manufacturer’s instructions (Ambion, USA). After DNase treatment, the RNA was subjected to ribosomal RNA depletion and generation of cDNA library using Illumina’s TruSeq RNA library prep Kit v2. The cDNA library was sequenced using Illumina’s NovaSeq 6000 system generating 2x100 pair-end reads.

Genome assembly and analysis

All the analyses of Illumina reads were conducted utilizing the tools integrated into Geneious Prime 2023. Following the process of pairing, duplicate reads were eliminated using dedupe, and low-quality reads were removed through BBDuk. De novo assembly was performed using SPAdes v. 3.15.5 [23]. Host associated contigs were first filtered out by performing BLASTn using the megablast function (e-value 1e-10, word size 28). All contigs with ≥ 95% nt identity (query coverage ≥ 35%) with the Bemisia tabaci genome (GenBank assembly project: GCA_918797505.1) were removed. The homology of the remaining contigs was explored by BLASTx (e-value 0.01, word size 3) using the non-redundant (nr) protein database (as of February 2023). Contigs over 600 nucleotides in length with BLASTx hits to viral proteins showing amino acid identities ≥ 25% (e-value 0.01, query coverage ≥ 35%) were considered, for our purposes, “virus-related” sequences. All BLAST analyses were performed using the high-performance computing (HPC) cluster from Oregon State University’s Center for Quantitative Life Sciences (CQLS).

The virus genome sequence assembled from HTS reads was used to design primers (S1 Table) to confirm the sequence in the original pooled RNA sample. Primers were designed in an overlapping fashion to cover the complete genome. Terminal regions were amplified using a second-generation RACE Kit (Roche, Germany) and specific primers designed close to the ends. Reverse transcription (RT) was done using SuperScriptTM IV (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) and random primers following manufacturer’s instructions. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was done using PlatinumTM Superfi II DNA Taq polymerase, (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). PCR-amplified products of overlapping and terminal fragments were cloned using a pGEMT-easy Kit (Promega, USA) and sequenced by the Sanger method.

Phylogenetic analysis

Evolutionary relationships of the new virus were investigated using the two most conserved proteins for nege/kitavirids, the RdRp and the putative SP24. Amino acid alignments and phylogenetics were performed using either protein but also using both proteins in a multi-locus type of analysis.

A total of 80 RdRp and 70 SP24 homologs were identified using the position-specific-iterated BLAST (PSI-BLAST) program [24] (https://BLAST.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST.cgi?CMD=Web&PAGE=Proteins&PROGRAM=BLASTp&RUN_PSIBLAST=on) (accessed September, 2023) and downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank. For most nege/kitavirids identified through PSI-BLAST both the RdRp and SP24 sequences were found. Exceptions include Bemisia tabaci nege-like virus 1, 2 and 3 (BtNeLV1-3), Aphis glycines nege-like virus 1 isolates AG1 and ABC1, Hubei virga-like virus 4, Frankliniella occidentalis associated negev-like virus 1–3, and Cordoba virus, for which no SP24 homologs were identified in GenBank during the analysis. Conversely, an amino acid sequence from Drosophila melanogaster, initially identified as a SP24 homolog by Quito-Avila et al. (2013) [25], was included in the analysis.

Amino acid multiple sequence alignments (MSA) were done using the MAFFT online server [26] and the transitive consistency score (TCS) [27] was applied for removing ambiguous alignment positions. The best amino acid substitution models (LG+G+I for both SP24, and RdRp) were determined using MEGA 11 [28]. The maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analyses for each protein and the concatenated alignment were performed with RAxML 8.2.12 [29] in the CIPRES Science Gateway [30]. The number of pseudo replicates used to determine the bootstrap support values was determined automatically in RAxML, according to the stopping criteria proposed by Pattengale et al. (2010) [31].

Topology of putative structural proteins

The architecture of putative structural proteins, e.g. glycoprotein (ORF 2) and SP24 (ORF 3) was inferred using a systematic set of bioinformatic resources. Disordered regions were predicted using DISOPRED [32] from PSIPRED [33]. Hydrophobic regions were detected using the Kyte-Doolittle hydropathy scale [34]. Transmembrane domains (TMs) were predicted using three different methods: the support vector machine-based MEMSAT algorithm [35], the hidden Markov model based TMHMM predictor server v. 2.0. [36] and the Constrained Consensus TOPology (CCTOP) prediction server v.1. [37].

Three-dimensional (3D) modelling and structural comparison of SP4 homologs

The 3D structures of the putative SP24 from the newly sequenced virus and other seventy homologs were predicted using ColabFold v1.5.3 [38]. Briefly, input sequences in FASTA format were aligned against the UniRef100 and environmental sequences databases, resulting in the generation of two MSAs containing all detected sequences. For prediction of a single structure, a diversity-aware filter was applied to the MSAs to reduce redundancy and enhance diversity of sequences, followed by 3D prediction by AlphaFold2. Predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) was applied as a confidence metric to rank single-structure predictions, where higher pLDDT values indicate more reliable and accurate predictions. For prediction of complex structures i.e. proteins with multiple interacting amino acid chains, the top hits within the same species were paired to resolve inter-chain contacts and facilitate the prediction of the entire complex’s structure. ColabFold provides 3D structures in pdb format with an assessment of prediction quality including coverage sequences of MSA, pLDDT and predicted aligned error (PAE).

Upon obtaining the 3D-structures of seventy-one SP24 homologs, we conducted a comprehensive structural comparison using TM-align [39], which utilizes dynamic programming iterations to generate an optimized residue-to-residue alignment based on structural similarity. TM-score values range from 0 to 1, where values close to 1 indicate a high level of structural similarity, while lower scores indicate structural differences. Linear correlation between each pair of TM-scores was measured by Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) [40] after TM-scores matrix transformation in Python 3 and represented by a heat map [41].

Results

HTS reads assembly

A total of 55.3 million paired-end sequencing reads were generated through the Illumina platform. Following the removal of duplicate and low-quality reads, de novo assembly produced 228,842 contigs ranging in length from 120 to 25,000 nt. Host associated contigs constituted 48.9% of the total, whereas only 0.05% (105 contigs) showed homology to different proteins encoded by RNA or DNA viruses associated with plants, fungi, insects, bacteria, or unclassified viruses (S1 Fig).

Within the set of 105 contigs, a particular 11.7 kb sequence displayed significant sequence homology to the RdRp found in various negevirus sequences documented in GenBank. The closest matches identified through BLASTx analysis were Bemisia tabaci negevirus 1 (BtNeV1, QWC36478.1) and BtNeLV1-3, exhibiting amino acid identity values of ~ 40% for a query coverage ~ 36% (e-value = 0.00001).

The assembly of the 11.7 kb contig was accomplished from 3,865 reads, with an average sequencing depth of 34X. A significantly higher read count was identified at the 3’ end (Fig 1), as recently observed in Indomegoura nege‐like virus 1 (INLV1) [14] and Astegopteryx formosana nege-like virus (AFNLV) [42]. This study focuses on the genomic analysis of this novel negevirus-like sequence, hereby designated as whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1).

Fig 1. Genome organization of whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) and read coverage from high throughput sequencing (HTS).

Fig 1

Predicted open reading frames (ORFs) with their corresponding molecular weight (kDa) are indicatated by rectangular boxes. Pattern-lined areas represent identified protein conserved domains as described in the legend. The lower panel shows the read coverage (y-axis) throughout the assembled genome. Arrows and dashed lines represent overlapping PCR amplified regions for Sanger sequencing (refer to S1 Table for primers sequence information). Red arrows positioned towards the 5’- and 3’- ends denote primer positions used for rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE).

Genome organization and sequence homology

Sequencing of overlapping PCR products spanning the complete HTS-generated contig including the terminal regions revealed a 11,848 nt long genome (GenBank Acc. No. PP036886) with four predicted ORFs and poly (A) tail. ORF 1 (nt positions 108–7,883) encodes a 296.2 kDa protein with MTR, HEL, and a conserved catalytic RdRp domain found in kitavirids (cd23254). ORF 2 (nt positions 8,292–9,587) encodes a putative 49.4 kDa protein sharing ~20% amino acid identity with negevirus glycoproteins. ORF 3 (nt positions 9,629–10,357) codes for a 27.3 kDa protein with SP24 (pfam16504) conserved domain, showing ~30% amino acid identity with nege- and kitavirus counterparts, and ORF 4 (nucleotide positions 10,923–11,747) encodes a 31 kDa putative protein of unknown function (Fig 1). Table 1 presents a comparison between the main features of hypothetical proteins encoded by WfNgV1 and those encoded by its closest relative, BtNeV1.

Table 1. Comparison between the putative proteins encoded by whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) and its closest relative Bemisia tabaci negevirus 1 (BtNeV1).

Molecular weight is expressed in kilodaltons (kDa).


Hypothetical proteins
Protein features
(length and molecular weight)

Protein pairwise identity and accession numbers
Nucleotide Amino acid kDa
WfNgV1 BtNeV1 WfNgV1 BtNeV1 WfNgV1 BtNeV1 % WfNgV1 BtNeV1
ORF 1 (Polymerase) 7,776 3,089* 2,591 1,028* 296.2 118.6* 42 WRT26033 QWC36478
ORF 2 (Glycoprotein) 1,296 1,242 431 413 49.4 48.5 22 WRT26034 QWC36479
ORF 3 (Structural protein of 24 kDa, SP24) 729 726 242 241 27.3 23.3 35 WRT26035 QWC36480
ORF 4 (Unknown) 825 765 274 254 30.9 29.3 24 WRT26036 QWC36479.1

* Partial sequence. It misses the 5’ end of ORF1.

The putative RdRp of WfNgV1 shows motifs typically found in counterparts from nege/kita viruses

Studies have demonstrated that the RdRp of nege/kitavirids shares three conserved motifs with the RdRp of other single-stranded RNA viruses, specifically, motif A [DX(4–5)D], motif B [GX(2–3)TX(3)N], and motif C (GDD), arranged in either the sequence A-B-C or the permuted order C-A-B [3]. The RdRp of WfNgV1 and its closest relative BtNeV1, exhibits the A-B-C arrangement, with 47 and 12 amino acids between adjacent motifs. Comparative analysis across representative homologs from nege- and kitaviruses revealed additional conservation in the proximity or within the motifs, resulting in an expanded motif A, 2249DxxKYDKSQ2257. Similarly, motif B displays five highly conserved amino acids, presenting the expanded motif 2305RxSGDxxTxxxNT2317 in WfNgV1. It is noteworthy that BtNeLV1-3 (QWC36482, QWC36484, and QWC36485), display the C-A-B configuration of RdRp motifs (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Signature motifs in whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) hypothetical proteins and comparison across homologs form representative taxa.

Fig 2

A) Conserved motifs A, B, and C of the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase (RdRp). B) Conserved cysteine residues (WfNgV1 amino acid positions 70, 84, 90, and 114) characteristic of glycoproteins encoded by open reading frame (ORF) 2 of negevirids. Additional conserved residues are highlighted (shaded areas). C) Conserved residues (shaded areas) across hypothetical SP24 proteins from representative nege/kitavirids. Predicted transmembrane (TM) regions are indicated in boxes. D) Conserved residues corresponding to the hypothetical product of WtNgV1 ORF 4 and its closest relative. For all panels: Residues colored in red (also underlined) denote full conservation across analyzed homologs. Bolded acronyms represent those corresponding to whitefly nege/nege-like viruses. Asterisk denotes protein positions based on partial sequence. Numbers in brackets indicate number of non-conserved residues between conserved areas. Virus acronyms and taxa: Bemisia tabaci negevirus 1 (BtNeV1, unclassified), Negev virus (NEGV, Nelorpivirus), Aphis glycines virus 3 (ApGlV3, Aphiglyvirus), Beihai barnacle virus 2, (BBV2, unclassified), Citrus leprosis virus, (CiLV, Cilevirus), Blueberry necrotic ring blotch virus (BNRBV, Blunervirus), Hibiscus green spot virus 2 (HGSV2, Higrevirus), Tetranychus urticae kitavirus (TuKV, unclassified), Red mite virga-like virus 1 (RMVLV1, unclassified), Chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV, Chroparavirus), Wuhan house centipede virus 1 (WHCV-1, Centivirus), Bemisia tabaci nege-like virus 1–3 (BtNeLV1-3, unclassified), Bustos virus (BUSV, Sandewavirus), DroMel (Drosophila melanogaster-associated SP24). Refer to S2 Table for accession numbers used in the alignments.

ORF 2 deduced 49 kDa protein in WfNgV1 exhibits motifs shared among chropara- and negevirus glycoproteins

Kuchibhatla et al. (2014) studied and hypothesized the glycoprotein nature of the deduced product of ORF2 from the chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV, the type member of the chroparavirus taxon) and negeviruses except those corresponding to the Sandewavirus clade. Although a low amino acid identity was observed across these homologs, a conserved region comprising approximately 50 amino acids was identified with four highly conserved cysteine residues predicted to form disulfide bridges [18]. We analyzed WfNgV1 putative glycoprotein (ORF2 product) and identified such a conserved region, indicating its evolutionary relationship, albeit with low amino acid identities (23.3% to 31.7%), with closest counterparts such as BtNeV1 (QWC36479) and Negev virus (BAR91506). The expected conserved cysteine residues were located in positions 70, 84, 90, and 114 of WfNgV1 glycoprotein. Additional conservation for residues valine (V), leucine (L), and proline (P), was observed across predicted glycoproteins of Aphis glycines virus 3 (ApGlV3, ASH89119) and Wuhan house centipede virus 1 (WHCV-1, BBV14742), among others (Fig 2B). Similar to glycoprotein homologs in CBPV and negeviruses, two putative transmembrane regions, TM1 (amino acid positions: 372 to 394) and TM2 (amino acid positions: 406–428) were predicted in the hypothetical WfNgV1 glycoprotein (not shown).

WfNgV1 ORF 3 putative SP24 has transmembrane features

The comparison of amino acid sequences between the predicted SP24 of WfNgV1 and its nearest relatives (see the phylogenetic analysis section) displayed identities ranging from 19% to 34%. The most significant amino acid identity (34%) was noted with the corresponding sequence from BtNeV1, which also shares a similar length, featuring 241 amino acids compared to the 242 amino acids in the WfNgV1 SP24.

Analysis of the overall amino acid composition of WfNgV1 SP24 revealed a notable abundance of alanine (A, 10.3%), arginine (R, 9.1%), and L (8.3%), followed by P, isoleucine (I), and V each constituting 8%. The predicted molecular weight (M.W.) of this protein is 27.3 kDa. Its structural arrangement includes two disordered regions at the N- and C-termini, respectively, and an ordered portion featuring four highly hydrophobic motifs, indicative of transmembrane (TM) regions [18].

TM1 (aa positions 62–81) is delimited by conserved residues aspartic acid (D) and histidine (H), and is made up mostly of V (15%), phenylalanine (F, 15%), L (10%), serine (S, 10%), A (10%), and I (10%); whereas the region corresponding to predicted TM2 (aa positions 115–130) is preceded by a partially conserved WxxxNxxK motif with the core region mainly composed of I (25%), followed by P, glycine (G), A, F, and L, with 12.5% each. The interface between TM2 and TM3 is defined by a seven amino acid stretch, featuring an R located at the central interface segment, a characteristic observed in 70% of the homologs analyzed. The bulk of TM3 (aa positions 138–160) is made up mainly of I (17%) and V (13%), followed by P, F, A, and tyrosine (Y), with 9% each. Interestingly, the motif PPVKVIEY was identified, where the underlined proline and tyrosine residues constitute the most conserved residues across all homologs. The proline lays in the central region of TM3, whereas the tyrosine residue is found at the end of it. The ~12 aa long TM3—TM4 interface contains a tyrosine residue, which is present in 70% of all homologs. TM4 (aa positions 173–195), preceded by a conserved R residue, is mostly composed of A (22%) and L (17%), followed by Y, V, I, G, and threonine (T), with 9% each. The approximate location of TM regions in WfNgV1 SP24 and the conservation across representative homologs from nege/kitavirids are shown in (Fig 2C).

WfNgV1 ORF4 encodes a hypothetical protein of unknown function

Despite extensive homology searches, no homologous sequences with predicted functions were identified for the hypothetical product of ORF4—a 31 kDa protein lacking discernible transmembrane motifs. However, a 24% amino acid identity was noted with its counterpart from BtNeV1, revealing two highly conserved motifs (Fig 2D). Hypothetical proteins from additional ORFs located downstream of the SP24 ORF in other negevirids did not align with those corresponding to WfNgV1 and BtNeV1.

Phylogenetic analysis

The multiple sequence alignment of the RdRp was 4,658 amino acids in length and was reduced to 1,687 residues, with 23.7% pairwise identity, after eliminating ambiguous alignment positions. Phylogenetic inference based on the RdRp sequence placed WfNgV1 with its closest relative, BtNeV1, which was isolated from whiteflies in Israel. Both viruses shared a more recent ancestor with members of the nelorpivirus clade. Interestingly, three additional RdRp homologs from nege-like viruses found in whiteflies (BtNeLV1-3) collected in China formed a distinct clade positioned between nelorpiviruses (including WfNgV1 and BtNeV1), and those tentatively proposed as centiviruses [13] (Fig 3A). Removal of ambiguous alignment positions from SP24 multiple sequence alignment (422 aa in length) resulted in a 126 aa alignment with 26.8% pairwise identity. The analysis based on the SP24 sequence revealed that WfNgV1 and BtNeV1, form a clade alongside nelorpiviruses, centiviruses, and three unclassified viruses namely Beihai barnacle virus 2 (BBV2) [43], soybean thrips nege-like virus-1, and a Drosophila melanogaster-associated SP24 sequence [25]. However, this clade lacked robust support (bootstrap < 50%) (Fig 3B). In the concatenated tree combining RdRp and SP24 sequences, WfNgV1 and BtNeV1 were confidently grouped closer to nelorpiviruses in a well-supported clade (bootstrap 90%). Although the node corresponding to the divergence of nelorpiviruses and centiviruses exhibited low bootstrap support (51%), the node representing the most recent common ancestor for nelorpiviruses, centiviruses, and other nege-like homologs from B. tabaci was well-supported (bootstrap 100%). This suggests a clear separation of these viruses from other negeviruses, including those in the taxa Sandewavirus, Aphiglyvirus, and plant-infecting viruses in the family Kitaviridae (Bluner-, Cile-, and Higreviruses) (Fig 3C).

Fig 3. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees depicting the relationships between whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) and representative nege/kita viruses sourced from GenBank.

Fig 3

The analysis utilized the amino acid sequences of the RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase A), the structural protein of 24kDa, SP24 B), and the concatenation of both (C). The LG+G+I model served as the amino acid substitution model for all analyses. The tree is drawn to scale with branch lengths measured in the number of amino acid substitutions per site. Node values represent bootstrap percentages (only values above 50% are displayed). Each taxon is labeled with the virus name, the proposed group, or as unclassified. The star indicates the WfNgV1 placement in the tree. *Additional viruses, otherwise considered unclassified such as Indomegoura indica nege-like virus 1 and Astegopteryx formosana nege-like virus 1, are included in the Centivirus due to strong bootstrap support. The complete list of virus sequences along with their accession numbers is provided in S3 Table.

Structural comparison of WfNgV1 SP24

The predicted 3D structure of WfNgV1 putative SP24 showed higher reliability between residues 30 and 190, where conserved positions suggest regions more likely to be accurately predicted during structure determination (Fig 4A and 4B). Within the prediction quality assessment, the selected model of WfNgV1 SP24 was based on the highest pLDDT values per residue position along the protein sequence. Most residues in the protein sequence had a pLDDT score above the threshold (70%) (Fig 4C), and low PAE values for residues within the 40–190 interval, indicating a higher confidence in the predicted local structure. Conversely, residues located at the N- and C- terminal regions showed higher PAE values, consistent with predicted disordered regions. Analysis of secondary structure revealed that 59.1% corresponds to helix structures, while the remaining fraction of the protein corresponds to coiled-coil structures, as determined by the dictionary of protein secondary structure (DSSP) method [44]. Structural analysis of seventy-one SP24 homologs from the TM-score matrix clustered homologs in a pattern reminiscent of our phylogenetic analysis, where SP24 homologs from WfNgV1, BtNeV1 and those from tentative members of the nelorpivirus and centivirus groups showed a closer evolutionary relationship (Fig 4D). A substantial difference was observed between the SP24 from WfNgV1 and its counterpart from members of the Sandewavirus group, as well as kita-like viruses.

Fig 4. Structural comparison of SP24 homologs.

Fig 4

A) Ribbon diagram of the putative SP24 of whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1). B) Structure-based multiple sequence alignment across SP24 homologs. Heat-map representation of structure-based multiple sequence alignment (MSA). The color scale indicates the identity score scaled from 1 to 0 where 1 is full identity of sequences used in MSA to target sequence and 0 is the lowest identity with it. The black line indicates the relative coverage of SP24 from WfNgV1 with respect to the total number of aligned sequences by residues. C) Upper panel: Predicted local distance difference test (LDDT) plot depicting the quality assessment for five models (ranks) of WfNgV1 SP24. Scores above 70 (Y-axis) are considered reliable models. Lower panel: DISOPRED plot illustrating the mean index for predicted disorder. Residues at at both termini of the protein sequence (amino acid positions 1–60 and 190–240 show high disorder scores. D) Heat-map from TM-score values illustrating structural similarities across members of the Nelorpi- and Centivirus taxa, along with closest relatives. Abbreviations: D. mela: SP24 homolog from Drosophila melanogaster, BBV2: Beihai barnacle virus 2; WfNgV1: Whitefly negevirus 1; BtNeV1: Bemisia tabaci negevirus 1. Refer to S3 Table for the complete names and accession numbers corresponding to SP24 homologs used in this study.

Discussion

In recent years, several nege/kitavirids have been reported not only from blood-sucking insects, but also from agriculturally important plant-feeding arthropods [1214]. Understanding the evolutionary relationships among these viruses is pivotal as the emergence of current kitaviruses may represent recent cross-kingdom jumps from arthropod-infecting ancestors followed by new host adaptation processes, as documented, among others, for plant rhabdoviruses [45].

Here, we present the complete genome of a new negevirus, provisionally designated whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1), from the whitefly Bemisia tabaci MEAM1, a worldwide distributed plant-feeding insect [22]. Due to the distant homology observed for negevirus proteins [18], our analyses to infer the function and evolutionary relationships of WfNgV1 predicted proteins were mostly based at the amino acid level. WfNgV1 was found closely related to BtNeV1, a partially-sequenced virus discovered recently in whiteflies from Israel, and BtNeLV1-3, also partially sequenced from whiteflies in China [46]. The partial genome of BtNeV1(MW256675) denotes an organization similar to that of WfNgV1 (except for the missing 5’ terminus of the polymerase coding region). For BtNeLV1, the sequence available from NCBI (MW256676) spans the complete coding regions for the polymerase (ORF1) and the glycoprotein (ORF2), while for BtNeLV2-3 (MW256677 and MW256678) only the complete coding region for the polymerase (ORF1) is available.

Our phylogenetic analysis based on the RdRp revealed a close relationship between negevirids from B. tabaci and viruses in the nelorpi- and centivirus taxa. While the nelorpivirus group has long been proposed as a genus-level taxon, containing numerous documented homologs [7], the centivirus taxon, typified by Wuhan house centipede virus 1, was recently proposed and now includes several negevirids from distinct agriculturally important aphid species [13,14,42]. Furthermore, the proposed aphiglyvirus taxon, typified by Aphis glycines virus 3 [13], shows a distinct evolutionary lineage, being closer to sandewaviruses. However, the low bootstrap support for the node representing the clade including sandewa- and aphiglyviruses suggests the possibility of undiscovered homologs that could enhance sequence alignment quality, otherwise affected by conflicting evolutionary signals, and offer more precise insights into whether aphiglyviruses, centiviruses, and whitefly negeviruses constitute a single genus-level taxon.

Unlike previous studies, where phylogenetic analyses were focused exclusively on the RdRp, we analyzed extensively the SP24, which is conserved among nege- and kitaviruses. Results from our SP24 based phylogenetic analysis were consistent with those from the RdRp, where WfNgV1 and its closest relative BtNeV1, form a single clade with nelorpi- and centiviruses. Interestingly, the presumed SP24 from Drosophila melanogaster was found closely associated with centiviruses within a well-supported clade. This homolog was initially identified during a genome sequencing project for D. melanogaster conducted by the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project in 2006 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/ABC86319.1/). Its significance as an SP24 homolog became apparent during the characterization of the blueberry necrotic ring blotch virus, the type-member of the genus Blunervirus (Kitaviridae), where it was hypothesized to be a viral rather than a host protein [25]. Sequence based relationships among nelorpi-, centi-, the D. melanogaster SP24, and the whitefly negeviruses, WfNgV1 and BtNeV1, were supported by our structural-based analysis of the SP24, which resulted in high TM-scores. We contend that our analysis, incorporating a larger number of taxa, the concatenation of RdRp and SP24, and structural-based analysis of SP24, offers an accurate representation of the evolutionary relationships among these viruses, with whitefly negeviruses linking two previously proposed groups, nelorpi- and centiviruses.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Percentage of contigs assembled from high throughput sequencing (HTS).

The pie chart shows the percent of RNA or DNA virus-related contigs associated to different hosts with respect to total contigs (n = 105) with homology to virus-encoded proteins identified by BLASTx.

(JPG)

pone.0303838.s001.jpg (450.7KB, jpg)
S1 Table. List of primers used for resequencing the whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) genome.

The following PCR parameters are recommended for all the primer sets used to re-sequence the genome: 96°C x 4 min, 40 cycles of 96°C x 1 min, 55°C x 30 sec, and 72°C x 1.5 min, a final additional extension at 72°C x 5 min. For rapid-amplification of cDNA-ends (RACE) refer to manufacturer instructions.

(DOCX)

pone.0303838.s002.docx (18.5KB, docx)
S2 Table. Virus names and accession numbers for amino acid sequences used in the alignments for Fig 2.

n.a. denotes no homologue available.

(DOCX)

pone.0303838.s003.docx (17.7KB, docx)
S3 Table. Virus names and accession numbers for amino acid sequences corresponding to putative structural protein of 24 kDa (SP24) and RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase (RdRp) used for phylogenetic analyses (Fig 3).

n.a. denotes no homologue available.

(DOCX)

pone.0303838.s004.docx (27.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to acknowledge papaya growers in Santa Elena for granting access to their fields and the Department of Biodiversity of the Ecuadorean Ministry of the Environment for granting Genetic Resource Access Permit # MAE–DNB–CM–2018–0098.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from NCBI GenBank under accession number PP036886.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Vasilakis N, Forrester NL, Palacios G, Nasar F, Savji N, Rossi SL, et al. Negevirus: a Proposed New Taxon of Insect-Specific Viruses with Wide Geographic Distribution. Journal of Virology. 2013;87(5):2475–88. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00776-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Auguste AJ, Carrington CVF, Forrester NL, Popov VL, Guzman H, Widen SG, et al. Characterization of a novel Negevirus and a novel Bunyavirus isolated from Culex (Culex) declarator mosquitoes in Trinidad. Journal of General Virology. 2014;95(2):481–5. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.058412-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nabeshima T, Inoue S, Okamoto K, Posadas-Herrera G, Yu F, Uchida L, et al. Tanay virus, a new species of virus isolated from mosquitoes in the Philippines. J Gen Virol. 2014;95(Pt 6):1390–5. Epub 2014/03/22. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.061887-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kallies R, Kopp A, Zirkel F, Estrada A, Gillespie TR, Drosten C, et al. Genetic characterization of goutanap virus, a novel virus related to negeviruses, cileviruses and higreviruses. Viruses. 2014;6(11):4346–57. doi: 10.3390/v6114346 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kawakami K, Kurnia YW, Fujita R, Ito T, Isawa H, Asano S-i, et al. Characterization of a novel negevirus isolated from Aedes larvae collected in a subarctic region of Japan. Archives of Virology. 2016;161(4):801–9. doi: 10.1007/s00705-015-2711-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fujita R, Kuwata R, Kobayashi D, Bertuso AG, Isawa H, Sawabe K. Bustos virus, a new member of the negevirus group isolated from a Mansonia mosquito in the Philippines. Archives of Virology. 2017;162(1):79–88. doi: 10.1007/s00705-016-3068-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nunes MRT, Contreras-Gutierrez MA, Guzman H, Martins LC, Barbirato MF, Savit C, et al. Genetic characterization, molecular epidemiology, and phylogenetic relationships of insect-specific viruses in the taxon Negevirus. Virology. 2017;504:152–67. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2017.01.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.O’Brien CA, McLean BJ, Colmant AMG, Harrison JJ, Hall-Mendelin S, van den Hurk AF, et al. Discovery and Characterisation of Castlerea Virus, a New Species of Negevirus Isolated in Australia. Evol Bioinform Online. 2017;13:1176934317691269–. doi: 10.1177/1176934317691269 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Charles J, Tangudu CS, Hurt SL, Tumescheit C, Firth AE, Garcia-Rejon JE, et al. Detection of novel and recognized RNA viruses in mosquitoes from the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico using metagenomics and characterization of their in vitro host ranges. Journal of General Virology. 2018;99(12):1729–38. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang Y, Guo X, Peng H, Lu Y, Zeng X, Dai K, et al. Complete genome sequence of a novel negevirus isolated from Culex tritaeniorhynchus in China. Archives of Virology. 2019;164(3):907–11. doi: 10.1007/s00705-018-04133-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Moraes OS, Cardoso BF, Pacheco TA, Pinto AZL, Carvalho MS, Hahn RC, et al. Natural infection by Culex flavivirus in Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes captured in Cuiabá, Mato Grosso Mid-Western Brazil. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2019;33(3):397–406. doi: 10.1111/mve.12374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Niu J, Zhang W, Sun QZ, Wang JJ. Three novel RNA viruses in the spider mite Tetranychus urticae and their possible interactions with the host RNA interference response. J Invertebr Pathol. 2019;166:107228. Epub 2019/08/07. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2019.107228 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kondo H, Fujita M, Hisano H, Hyodo K, Andika IB, Suzuki N. Virome Analysis of Aphid Populations That Infest the Barley Field: The Discovery of Two Novel Groups of Nege/Kita-Like Viruses and Other Novel RNA Viruses. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:509. Epub 2020/04/23. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00509 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7154061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Qi Y-H, Xu L-Y, Zhai J, Ye Z-X, Lu G, Chen J-P, et al. Complete genome sequence of a novel nege-like virus in aphids (genus Indomegoura). Virology Journal. 2021;18(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01552-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Thekke-Veetil T, Lagos-Kutz D, McCoppin NK, Hartman GL, Ju HK, Lim HS, et al. Soybean Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Harbor Highly Diverse Populations of Arthropod, Fungal and Plant Viruses. Viruses. 2020;12(12). Epub 2020/12/05. doi: 10.3390/v12121376 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7761488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ottati S, Chiapello M, Galetto L, Bosco D, Marzachì C, Abbà S. New Viral Sequences Identified in the Flavescence Dorée Phytoplasma Vector Scaphoideus titanus. Viruses. 2020;12(3). Epub 2020/03/12. doi: 10.3390/v12030287 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7150801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Colmant AMG, apos, Brien CA, Newton ND, Watterson D, Hardy J, et al. Novel monoclonal antibodies against Australian strains of negeviruses and insights into virus structure, replication and host -restriction. Journal of General Virology. 2020;101(4):440–52. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kuchibhatla DB, Sherman WA, Chung BYW, Cook S, Schneider G, Eisenhaber B, et al. Powerful Sequence Similarity Search Methods and In-Depth Manual Analyses Can Identify Remote Homologs in Many Apparently “Orphan” Viral Proteins. Journal of Virology. 2014;88(1):10–20. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02595-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carapeta S, do Bem B, McGuinness J, Esteves A, Abecasis A, Lopes Â, et al. Negeviruses found in multiple species of mosquitoes from southern Portugal: Isolation, genetic diversity, and replication in insect cell culture. Virology. 2015;483:318–28. Epub 2015/06/10. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2015.04.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lu G, Ye Z-X, He Y-J, Zhang Y, Wang X, Huang H-J, et al. Discovery of Two Novel Negeviruses in a Dungfly Collected from the Arctic. Viruses. 2020;12(7):692. doi: 10.3390/v12070692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ramos-González PL, Santos GFd, Chabi-Jesus C, Harakava R, Kitajima EW, Freitas-Astúa J. Passion Fruit Green Spot Virus Genome Harbors a New Orphan ORF and Highlights the Flexibility of the 5′-End of the RNA2 Segment Across Cileviruses. Front Microbiol. 2020;11(206). doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sani I, Ismail SI, Abdullah S, Jalinas J, Jamian S, Saad N. A Review of the Biology and Control of Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), with Special Reference to Biological Control Using Entomopathogenic Fungi. Insects. 2020;11(9). Epub 2020/09/16. doi: 10.3390/insects11090619 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7564875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. Using SPAdes De Novo Assembler. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. 2020;70(1):e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(17):3389–402. Epub 1997/09/01. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC146917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Quito-Avila DF, Brannen PM, Cline WO, Harmon PF, Martin RR. Genetic characterization of Blueberry necrotic ring blotch virus, a novel RNA virus with unique genetic features. J Gen Virol. 2013;94(Pt 6):1426–34. Epub 2013/03/15. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.050393-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Katoh K, Rozewicki J, Yamada KD. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief Bioinform. 2019;20(4):1160–6. Epub 2017/10/03. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx108 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6781576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chang JM, Di Tommaso P, Notredame C. TCS: a new multiple sequence alignment reliability measure to estimate alignment accuracy and improve phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31(6):1625–37. Epub 2014/04/04. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msu117 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(7):3022–7. Epub 2021/04/24. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8233496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T. The CIPRES science gateway: enabling high-impact science for phylogenetics researchers with limited resources. Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment: Bridging from the eXtreme to the campus and beyond; Chicago, Illinois, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2012. p. Article 39. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pattengale ND, Alipour M, Bininda-Emonds OR, Moret BM, Stamatakis A. How many bootstrap replicates are necessary? J Comput Biol. 2010;17(3):337–54. Epub 2010/04/10. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2009.0179 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jones DT, Cozzetto D. DISOPRED3: precise disordered region predictions with annotated protein-binding activity. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(6):857–63. Epub 2014/11/12. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu744 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Buchan DWA, Jones DT. The PSIPRED Protein Analysis Workbench: 20 years on. Nucleic Acids Research. 2019;47(W1):W402–W7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kyte J, Doolittle RF. A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1982;157(1):105–32. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(82)90515-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nugent T, Jones DT. Transmembrane protein topology prediction using support vector machines. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10(1):159. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer EL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80. Epub 2001/01/12. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dobson L, Reményi I, Tusnády GE. CCTOP: a Consensus Constrained TOPology prediction web server. Nucleic acids research. 2015;43(W1):W408–W12. Epub 2015/05/05. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv451 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mirdita M, Schütze K, Moriwaki Y, Heo L, Ovchinnikov S, Steinegger M. ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nature Methods. 2022;19(6):679–82. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang Y, Skolnick J. TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(7):2302–9. Epub 2005/04/26. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki524 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1084323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yan R, Wang X, Huang L, Yan F, Xue X, Cai W. Prediction of structural features and application to outer membrane protein identification. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):11586. doi: 10.1038/srep11586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dokmanic I, Parhizkar R, Ranieri J, Vetterli M. Euclidean Distance Matrices: Essential theory, algorithms, and applications. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 2015;32(6):12–30. doi: 10.1109/MSP.2015.2398954 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhang X-D, Lu G, Ye Z-X, Chen J-P, Zhang C-X, Li J-M. Complete genome analysis of a nege-like virus in aphids (Astegopteryx formosana). Archives of Virology. 2022;167(1):267–70. doi: 10.1007/s00705-021-05299-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bojko J, Jennings LA, Behringer DC. A novel positive single-stranded RNA virus from the crustacean parasite, Probopyrinella latreuticola (Peracarida: Isopoda: Bopyridae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2020;177:107494. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2020.107494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers. 1983;22(12):2577–637. doi: 10.1002/bip.360221211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Whitfield AE, Huot OB, Martin KM, Kondo H, Dietzgen RG. Plant rhabdoviruses-their origins and vector interactions. Curr Opin Virol. 2018;33:198–207. Epub 2018/12/01. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2018.11.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Huang H-J, Ye Z-X, Wang X, Yan X-T, Zhang Y, He Y-J, et al. Diversity and infectivity of the RNA virome among different cryptic species of an agriculturally important insect vector: whitefly Bemisia tabaci. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes. 2021;7(1):43. doi: 10.1038/s41522-021-00216-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rhys Harold Parry

7 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-05885

Analysis of a new negevirus-like sequence from Bemisia tabaci unveils a potential new taxon linking nelorpi- and centiviruses

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Quito-Avila,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rhys Harold Parry

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. ""In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why."""

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Quito-Avila,

Your manuscript has now been reviewed by two experts in the field. They both find the results of interest and recommend publication pending several minor modifications.

Please meet or respond to the concerns raised in an outlined review document and submit a resubmission of your manuscript.

Dr. Rhys Parry

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Analysis of a new negevirus-like sequence from Bemisia tabaci unveils a potential new taxon linking nelorpi- and centiviruses

The paper by Quito-Avila and colleagues describes the identification of a novel nege-like virus (complete genome sequenced) in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, an important agricultural pest. Viruses found in this species are of importance given the hosts agricultural association and evidence suggesting that insect specific viruses such as the nege-like viruses may inhibit alphavirus infection offering a potential method of controlling arthropod-borne pathogens. The authors provide an in-depth characterisation of this novel virus including phylogenetic and structural analyses of structural proteins. Overall, I have no major concerns about this study, the manuscript is well written, and the methods used are adequate. However, the following should be addressed before this manuscript is suitable for publication in PLoS One.

Figure 3:

The vertical gaps between branches are inconsistent, have tips been manually pruned from the trees or is this an artefact from collapsing branches? Furthermore, the scale bar across the trees is quite large. Please add to the figure legend what the scale bar represents (amino acid substitutions per site?). Please provide further information about the alignments - length, pairwise identity, etc- used to infer these trees. If possible, alignments should be made publicly available in a data repository like Github to enable reproducibility. Likewise, it would be great if structure of SP24 was made available.

Methods:

- Please clarify whether the RNA from the ten whiteflies was extracted individually before being pooled to form a single library.

- The authors state that they filtered out host-associated contigs by performing BLASTn against the Bemisia tabaci genome. The exclusion criteria here is unclear, please clarify whether all hits to the B. tabaci genome excluded and the e-value cutoff used. Similarly, e-value should be specified when describing the BLASTx analysis, i.e., "Homology of remaining contigs was explored by BLASTx using the non-redundant protein database (as of August 2023)."

- Minor point, the authors include versioning and citations for some software in the methods section but not for others. Please include this information for all software used.

- Please describe how the primers used in the PCR were designed (e.g., based on the whitefly negevirus 1 sequence or on some other sequence).

- Please specify how bootstrap support was calculated.

Figure legends:

- In Figure 4B, please clarify what is meant by largest and lowest identity. This should also be included as a label on the figure key.

- S1 Fig. I don’t see any information on how contig abundance is calculated. If this is just the percentage of contigs assigned to each group, I would refer to it as such, rather than using the term "abundance." Regardless, please describe the method for you used for calculating this metric.

- Panel D) seems to be missing in the Figure 2 caption text.

Minor comments:

- In the abstract the authors state that “Both viruses form a clade sharing a recent ancestor with the proposed nelorpivirus and centivirus taxa”. From my reading of the text, the authors are referring the most recent common ancestor of these two taxa. This should be specified as the current wording implies that these taxa diverged recently, a conclusion that is not supported by the data.

- Line 122: “Most accessions selected through PSI-BLAST encompassed both RdRp and SP24.” This current wording makes it seem that RdRp and SP24 were found on the same sequence, whereas I assume the intended meaning is the following: For most nege/kitavirids identified through PSI-BLAST both the RdRp and SP24 sequences were found.

- Line 167: Phyton 3 should be Python 3

- Throughout the manuscript and figures capitalisation and italicisation of viral groups is inconsistent. Please refer to the following guide: https://ictv.global/faqs

Reviewer #2: Whitefly negevirus 1 is a fascinating novel virus identified in an agriculturally significant host and falls within an evolutionarily interesting clade. The authors describe this novel virus in detail genomically and phylogenetically. The phylogenies in this paper also appear to link Nelorpivirus and Centivirus, hopefully bringing us a step to formally ratifying these clades. The methodology is reproducible and well-described overall. I have generally minor comments and queries throughout the manuscript as well as some suggestions for figure edits that should improve the ease of interpretation for a reader. These are detailed in a line-by-line review uploaded as an attachment. Overall, this is a robust paper that is sure to be of interest to the readers of PLOS ONE, and will be particularly valuable to readers focused on arthropod-associated viruses or unique and divergent RNA virus clades.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_2024_PLOSONE_QuitoAvila.docx

pone.0303838.s005.docx (16.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 May 16;19(5):e0303838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303838.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Apr 2024

Authors’ Response to Review Comments

Dear Editor,

Please find below the responses to each comment/suggestion diligently made by each reviewer.

As part of the “response to reviewers” step, we are submitting a change-track version of the revised manuscript, so that reviewers and you can confirm our amendments.

We want to thank both reviewers for such nice words about our work, but specially for taking the time to read the manuscript thoroughly making pertinent suggestions and comments.

Reviewer #1: Analysis of a new negevirus-like sequence from Bemisia tabaci unveils a potential new taxon linking nelorpi- and centiviruses

The paper by Quito-Avila and colleagues describes the identification of a novel nege-like virus (complete genome sequenced) in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, an important agricultural pest. Viruses found in this species are of importance given the hosts agricultural association and evidence suggesting that insect specific viruses such as the nege-like viruses may inhibit alphavirus infection offering a potential method of controlling arthropod-borne pathogens. The authors provide an in-depth characterisation of this novel virus including phylogenetic and structural analyses of structural proteins. Overall, I have no major concerns about this study, the manuscript is well written, and the methods used are adequate. However, the following should be addressed before this manuscript is suitable for publication in PLoS One.

Figure 3:

The vertical gaps between branches are inconsistent, have tips been manually pruned from the trees or is this an artefact from collapsing branches? Furthermore, the scale bar across the trees is quite large. Please add to the figure legend what the scale bar represents (amino acid substitutions per site?). Please provide further information about the alignments - length, pairwise identity, etc- used to infer these trees. If possible, alignments should be made publicly available in a data repository like Github to enable reproducibility. Likewise, it would be great if structure of SP24 was made available.

Response:

The spaces between branches have been fixed as recommended. The phylogenetic tree was based on amino acid sequences. So, this information has been added to the figure legend. The amino acid sequence alignments used for the phylogenetic analysis, as well as the 3D structure of SP24 (.pdb) will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

Methods:

- Please clarify whether the RNA from the ten whiteflies was extracted individually before being pooled to form a single library.

Response:

This part has been clarified as suggested. (See related comment for reviewer 2).

- The authors state that they filtered out host-associated contigs by performing BLASTn against the Bemisia tabaci genome. The exclusion criteria here is unclear, please clarify whether all hits to the B. tabaci genome excluded and the e-value cutoff used. Similarly, e-value should be specified when describing the BLASTx analysis, i.e., "Homology of remaining contigs was explored by BLASTx using the non-redundant protein database (as of August 2023)."

Response:

Yes. We have clarified this part by adding more information about the host genome filtered.

- Minor point, the authors include versioning and citations for some software in the methods section but not for others. Please include this information for all software used.

Response:

We have checked throughout the manuscript and added software versions accordingly.

- Please describe how the primers used in the PCR were designed (e.g., based on the whitefly negevirus 1 sequence or on some other sequence).

Response:

Yes. We recognize that this part was not clear. We have added a few lines to make it clear.

- Please specify how bootstrap support was calculated.

Response:

Details on the bootstrap support, and the corresponding citation, have been added.

Figure legends:

- In Figure 4B, please clarify what is meant by largest and lowest identity. This should also be included as a label on the figure key.

Response:

The text in the figure legend has been modified for clarification.

- S1 Fig. I don’t see any information on how contig abundance is calculated. If this is just the percentage of contigs assigned to each group, I would refer to it as such, rather than using the term "abundance." Regardless, please describe the method for you used for calculating this metric.

Response:

We agree. Modifications to the text and the pie chart have been made, in response to both reviewers.

- Panel D) seems to be missing in the Figure 2 caption text.

Response:

Yes. Thank you for catching this mistake. The corresponding text has been added.

Minor comments:

- In the abstract the authors state that “Both viruses form a clade sharing a recent ancestor with the proposed nelorpivirus and centivirus taxa”. From my reading of the text, the authors are referring the most recent common ancestor of these two taxa. This should be specified as the current wording implies that these taxa diverged recently, a conclusion that is not supported by the data.

Response:

Yes. We agree. We have accepted this suggestion and reworded the text accordingly.

- Line 122: “Most accessions selected through PSI-BLAST encompassed both RdRp and SP24.” This current wording makes it seem that RdRp and SP24 were found on the same sequence, whereas I assume the intended meaning is the following: For most nege/kitavirids identified through PSI-BLAST both the RdRp and SP24 sequences were found.

Response:

Yes. The way the reviewer suggests is exactly what was meant. Hence, the text was replaced accordingly.

- Line 167: Phyton 3 should be Python 3

Response:

This has been corrected.

- Throughout the manuscript and figures capitalisation and italicisation of viral groups is inconsistent. Please refer to the following guide: https://ictv.global/faqs

Response:

We have attempted to homogenize the virus name notation according to ICTV guidelines. However, it should be note that most viruses mentioned in this work, are actually informal names, as negeviruses have not yet received formal taxonomical assignments by the ICTV. In other words, these are not formally considered “species”. But if needed, we will be ready to work on this during the editorial stage.

Reviewer #2: Whitefly negevirus 1 is a fascinating novel virus identified in an agriculturally significant host and falls within an evolutionarily interesting clade. The authors describe this novel virus in detail genomically and phylogenetically. The phylogenies in this paper also appear to link Nelorpivirus and Centivirus, hopefully bringing us a step to formally ratifying these clades. The methodology is reproducible and well-described overall. I have generally minor comments and queries throughout the manuscript as well as some suggestions for figure edits that should improve the ease of interpretation for a reader. These are detailed in a line-by-line review uploaded as an attachment. Overall, this is a robust paper that is sure to be of interest to the readers of PLOS ONE, and will be particularly valuable to readers focused on arthropod-associated viruses or unique and divergent RNA virus clades.

Comments

1. Line 93: The data set is comprised of one library constructed from ten individual whiteflies. It would be helpful to explain why the samples were combined and to indicate at which stage samples were combined (i.e., before or after RNA extraction).

Response:

As there was a similar comment from reviewer 1, we added a few lines to address this part. In short, in preliminary extractions we realized that the amount and quality of RNA did not meet the requirements for HTS. Hence, we pooled 10 whiteflies and performed the extraction as a single preparation.

2. Line 132: It is unclear how many ambiguously aligned positions were removed. Can the authors provide the lengths of the original alignments and compare to the lengths of trimmed alignments?

Response:

This information has been added.

3. Line 174: What were the percentage identity cut-offs for considering a contig to be viral? Were these contigs further analysed (phylogenetically for example) to confirm they were indeed viral? And how were host organisms assigned? This would greatly enhance the level of detail in the methods section.

Response:

We added information (in the Genome assembly and analysis section) as to how we performed the BLASTx analysis and how a “virus-related” contig was regarded as such. We did not perform further phylogenetic analyses for confirming BLASTx results, as our focus was the negevirus-like that we report in this study.

4. Line 174: Does this data set of 105 contigs include RNA viruses or all viruses? This should be stated in the methods as well as the figure legend for Supplementary Figure 1.

Response:

While plant-, fungi- and insect- related viruses were all RNA viruses, bacteriophage-sequences were mostly from DNA viruses. We agree. This should have been clarified in the text and legend of S1 Fig. (Fixed now).

5. Figure 2 legend: A description of Panel D appears to be missing in this figure legend.

Response:

Yes. Thank you. We added the missing description.

6. Line 257: Please refer to the relevant figures earlier in each section for ease of understanding.

Response:

We have adhered to the journal guidelines for calling Figures in the text. But, we’ll be ready to fix these issued at the editorial stage if necessary.

7. Figure 2B: The highlighted red valine residue and lack of position markings seems to imply the fourth conserved cysteine residue is not present and is instead a conserved valine residue. Consider marking the positions of interest and highlighting the fourth cysteine residues in position 114, perhaps by shading the column in grey as it is not universally conserved like positions 70, 84, and 90.

Response:

Thanks for the suggestion. Agree. We have modified the figure accordingly. Additional slight modifications have been done to fig 2 to comply with suggestions regarding potential readers with color blindness. (Good suggestion!!).

8. Line 258: What are the “additional conserved residues”? Cysteine?

Response:

The text has been modified to clarify this observation.

9. Line 265: This section needs more references to the relevant figure, especially earlier on. It’s very difficult to follow the text without knowing which figure represents the described data.

Response:

This section, which reads “ORF 2 deduced 49 kDa protein in WfNgV1 exhibits motifs shared among chropara- and negevirus glycoproteins” tells the reader what the paragraph is about, and the reader is only referred to Fig 2B (nothing else). Please keep in mind that Figure 2 has 4 panels (2A for the RdRp, 2B for the glycoprotein, 2C for the SP24, and 2D for that additional ORF 4 found in WfNgV1 and closest relative).

Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that the whole figure description (legend) is before. But that is what the journal format calls for. Nevertheless, the amendments made to Fig 2B and the text (previously suggested by Reviewer 2), will make the whole paragraph clearer.

10. Line 267: “(refer to the subsequent section)” This is confusing as it is unclear when reading what subsequent section is being referred to.

Response:

We have reworded that line to avoid confusion.

11. Figure 2C: It may be helpful to highlight the exact residues considered to be conserved here. Perhaps they can be bolded so it is clear, particularly in some of the less obviously conserved positions (e.g., in the first shaded column of Figure 2C, bold each occurrence of the letter D).

Response:

We accepted this suggestion and applied it to panel 2B as well for uniformity.

12. Lines 271-289: The entire section refers often to the amino acid compositions of different parts of the WfNgV1 genome. The significance of these observations are not discussed. I encourage the authors to expand on this idea in both the results and discussion sections so it is clear why the amino acid compositions matter.

Response:

We have added a few lines to the discussion section to address this observation.

13. Line 285: It may be helpful to put the single-letter code in brackets when a full amino acid name is written to assist those who do not have the abbreviations memorized. That will make it easier to quickly refer to the figure and identify the residue in question.

Response:

We have addressed this issue by adding single letter codes only for those amino acids that will be used again in following lines/paragraphs.

14. Figure 3A: It is interesting that the Kitaviridae and kita-like RdRp sequences in this tree are not monophyletic, in contrast to the other trees. What do the authors think of this observation?

Response:

It is well known, that the RdRp is one of the most conserved, but also ancient, proteins in RNA viruses. As such, it is not unusual for RdRps of some viruses to have undergone recombination events which can influence their evolutionary pathways. In plants, viral mixed infections —involving related or unrelated viruses— are rather common, hence plant viruses are particularly susceptible to recombination and/or reassortment events, especially for those with segmented genomes, as is the case for Bluner/Cile/Higre (members of the Kitaviridae). The observation made by the reviewer aligns with others (including ours), which altogether may even suggest that eventually the Kitaviridae might be split into two distinct families (one that encompasses blunerviruses and other for Cile/Higre-viruses, which are notably closest to each other). Having said that, the present work does not aim to investigate any further into the evolution of kitaviruses per se, but to share a new nege- (insect-associated) virus and look at its most recent evolution. We thank this reviewer for prompting this interesting subject though!

15. Figure 3: The spacing in between certain branches is strange. Is this simply a visual artifact or are these large gaps intentionally added to signify something?

Response:

Indeed. It is the result of manually collapsing branches in order to increase the main focus of our figures, which is the newly discovered virus. But we accept the suggestion and have modified the figure to make the spacing uniform.

16. Figure 3: What do the branch lengths and scale bar represent? Number of amino acid changes per site? This information should be added to the figure legend.

Response:

Yes. We added the suggested information to the figure legend.

17. Figure 4: The authors may want to reconsider the colours used in this figure (particularly panels C and D). The current palettes may be difficult for readers with reduced colour vision or those reading in black and white.

Response:

Thank you. We have modified panel D in this figure, as suggested. We would like to keep the current version of panel C, as we consider that this part is easy to interpret even if a person cannot distinguish those colors.

18. Figure 4D: As the scale is from 0 to 1, it may be better to have a single-colour scale, ie, eliminate the blue shades and represent 0 with white and 1 with dark red.

Response:

This has been modified.

19. Line 380: Avoid referencing figures in the discussion, that should be restricted to results. Here, the results should be expanded on in the context of currently available literature.

Response:

Duly noted. We have deleted fig calls in the discussion section.

20. Line 385: Low bootstrap support indicates low confidence in the relationships inferred from presented topology; other causes, such as poor alignment and conflicting evolutionary signals, must be acknowledged.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable observation. We have incorporated a few lines, using your suggestion, to clarify that aspect.

21. Line 569: I highly recommend representing these data differently, at least by making it a flat pie chart rather than 3D. Also, the colours are unfortunately completely indistinguishable in black and white and quite difficult to distinguish for those with colour blindeness. Please change the colour palette or consider labelling the slices directly with the relevant category.

Response:

These are details that authors usually do

Decision Letter 1

Rhys Harold Parry

2 May 2024

Analysis of a new negevirus-like sequence from Bemisia tabaci unveils a potential new taxon linking nelorpi- and centiviruses

PONE-D-24-05885R1

Dear Dr. Quito-Avila,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rhys Harold Parry

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Rhys Harold Parry

7 May 2024

PONE-D-24-05885R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Quito-Avila,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rhys Harold Parry

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Percentage of contigs assembled from high throughput sequencing (HTS).

    The pie chart shows the percent of RNA or DNA virus-related contigs associated to different hosts with respect to total contigs (n = 105) with homology to virus-encoded proteins identified by BLASTx.

    (JPG)

    pone.0303838.s001.jpg (450.7KB, jpg)
    S1 Table. List of primers used for resequencing the whitefly negevirus 1 (WfNgV1) genome.

    The following PCR parameters are recommended for all the primer sets used to re-sequence the genome: 96°C x 4 min, 40 cycles of 96°C x 1 min, 55°C x 30 sec, and 72°C x 1.5 min, a final additional extension at 72°C x 5 min. For rapid-amplification of cDNA-ends (RACE) refer to manufacturer instructions.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303838.s002.docx (18.5KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Virus names and accession numbers for amino acid sequences used in the alignments for Fig 2.

    n.a. denotes no homologue available.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303838.s003.docx (17.7KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Virus names and accession numbers for amino acid sequences corresponding to putative structural protein of 24 kDa (SP24) and RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase (RdRp) used for phylogenetic analyses (Fig 3).

    n.a. denotes no homologue available.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0303838.s004.docx (27.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_2024_PLOSONE_QuitoAvila.docx

    pone.0303838.s005.docx (16.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from NCBI GenBank under accession number PP036886.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES