Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of General Virology logoLink to The Journal of General Virology
. 2008 Aug;89(Pt 8):1901–1910. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.2008/000190-0

Genetic variation of St. Louis encephalitis virus

Fiona J May 1,2,3,4, Li Li 1,2,3,4, Shuliu Zhang 1,2,3,5, Hilda Guzman 1,3,4, David W C Beasley 1,2,3,5, Robert B Tesh 1,3,4, Stephen Higgs 1,2,3,4, Pushker Raj 6, Rudy Bueno Jr 7, Yvonne Randle 7, Laura Chandler 8, Alan D T Barrett 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC2696384  NIHMSID: NIHMS115236  PMID: 18632961

Abstract

St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) has been regularly isolated throughout the Americas since 1933. Previous phylogenetic studies involving 62 isolates have defined seven major lineages (I–VII), further divided into 14 clades. In this study, 28 strains isolated in Texas in 1991 and 2001–2003, and three older, previously unsequenced strains from Jamaica and California were sequenced over the envelope protein gene. The inclusion of these new sequences, and others published since 2001, has allowed better delineation of the previously published SLEV lineages, in particular the clades of lineage II. Phylogenetic analysis of 106 isolates identified 13 clades. All 1991 and 2001–2003 isolates from Nueces, Jefferson and Harris Counties (Texas Gulf Coast) group in clade IIB with other isolates from these counties isolated during the 1980s and 1990s. This lack of evidence for introduction of novel strains into the Texas Gulf Coast over a long period of time is consistent with overwintering of SLEV in this region. Two El Paso isolates, both from 2002, group in clade VA with recent Californian isolates from 1998–2001 and some South American strains with a broad temporal range. Overall, these data are consistent with multiple introductions of SLEV from South America into North America, and provide support for the hypothesis that in most situations, SLEV circulates within a locality, with occasional incursions from other areas. Finally, SLEV has much lower nucleotide (10.1 %) and amino acid variation (2.8 %) than other members of the Japanese encephalitis virus complex (maximum variation 24.6 % nucleotide and 11.8 % amino acid).

INTRODUCTION

St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) is a member of the family Flaviviridae, the genus Flavivirus, and is classified within the Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) complex along with other important pathogens such as JEV, Murray Valley encephalitis virus (MVEV) and West Nile virus (WNV) (Thiel et al., 2005). SLEV has been detected in, and in many cases isolated from, mosquitoes, birds and mammals throughout North, Central and South America, from southern Canada to Argentina (Reisen, 2003). Epidemics of SLEV infection occur sporadically, with large outbreaks often being preceded by smaller outbreaks in previous years, and are generally associated with increasing numbers of infected mosquitoes and birds (Day & Stark, 1999; Day, 2001). Since it was first identified during the 1933 outbreak in St Louis, Missouri, there have been a number of epidemics of encephalitis attributed to SLEV, resulting in more than 1000 deaths, more than 10 000 cases of severe illness, and more than 1 000 000 mild or subclinical infections (Reisen, 2003). Fatality rates increase with age, with those below 49 years old exhibiting only 5 % mortality, while those above 70 years of age show 23 % mortality (Day, 2001).

SLEV utilizes different mosquito hosts in different regions. In the northern half of the USA, SLEV is most often isolated from Culex pipiens; while in Florida, it is most often isolated from Culex nigripalpus. In the south-west, it is most often isolated from Culex quinquefasciatus; but it is transmitted by Culex tarsalis in rural areas (reviewed by Day, 2001). A number of studies have provided evidence that, rather than being reintroduced annually, SLEV circulates within a region from season to season (Chandler et al., 2001; Kramer & Chandler, 2001), although the method of overwintering has yet to be clearly determined. SLEV has been shown to persist in Culex species for more than a month, and isolates have been obtained from overwintering C. tarsalis and C. pipiens mosquitoes (Bailey et al., 1978; Reeves et al., 1958), suggesting that this is the most likely method of season-to-season persistence. However, experimental vertical transmission of SLEV in mosquitoes has also been reported (Francy et al., 1981; Hardy et al., 1980, 1984; Nayar et al., 1986).

The SLEV genome, like those of other flaviviruses, is approximately 11 kb, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA and encodes a polyprotein flanked by 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions. The polyprotein is co- and post-translationally processed into the three structural proteins, capsid (C), premembrane/membrane (prM/M) and envelope (E) and seven non-structural proteins: NS1, NS2A, NS2B, NS3, NS4A, NS4B and NS5. Previous phylogenetic studies based on the E gene have shown the existence of seven lineages, grouping most viruses geographically (Kramer & Chandler, 2001). However, there is some evidence to suggest spread of individual variants across the USA, as in the case of the 1975 epidemic, with isolates from Tennessee, Mississippi and California grouping together (Kramer & Chandler, 2001) and variation of genotype within a single geographical location (Kramer et al., 1997; Reisen et al., 2002). There is no evidence of correlation between phenotypic characteristics such as virulence and phylogenetic groupings (Kramer et al., 1997; Trent et al., 1980). Since the introduction of WNV into southern California, no SLEV isolates have been detected despite substantial surveillance of mosquito populations (Fang & Reisen, 2006), suggesting that these viruses may not be able to coexist when sharing the same mosquito vector. Likewise, very few isolates of SLEV have been obtained in East Texas since the introduction of WNV into that region in 2002. Previously, the only examples of closely related viruses co-circulating simultaneously in the same mosquito population occurred in Australia with Kunjin virus (a subtype of WNV), JEV and MVEV occurring endemically in the same ecological niche (Hall et al., 2002; Johansen et al., 2000; Kay et al., 1984), and in India where WNV and JEV circulate together (Carey et al., 1968a, b).

SLEV was first detected in Harris County (Houston), Texas, during the countrywide epidemic of 1964. During this epidemic, more cases were reported in Harris County than in any other county in the USA (Luby et al., 1967), and indeed, this trend has continued with Harris County often reporting more SLEV isolations than any other county in the USA (Tsai et al., 1988; http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/sle/). The current study investigated the genetic relationships of a number of recent isolates from Texas, some older isolates from California and one from Jamaica, with previously studied isolates and proposes an updated classification of some SLEV clades. Furthermore, amino acid variation in the E protein was found to be very limited compared with variation between strains of other viruses in the JE complex.

METHODS

Viruses.

The viruses used in these studies are described in Table 1 and were obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services in Austin, Harris County Mosquito Control Division, Houston, or the World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Viruses were passaged once in Vero cells grown in minimal essential medium (Gibco) supplemented with 100 U penicillin ml−1, 100 μg streptomycin ml−1, 0.1 mM essential amino acids, 1 mM sodium pyruvate and 2 % bovine growth serum. Aliquots of virus were stored at −80 °C.

Table 1.

Strains of SLEV sequenced in this study

GenBank accession no. Name Designation Year of isolation Location
EU306883 BFS508 CA-50 1950 CA
EU306884 BFN1324 CA-70B 1970 CA
EU306885 J7532 JAM-62 1962 Jamaica
EU306909 V4683 TX-91B 1991 Harris County, TX
EU306886 01V1933 TX-01A 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306887 01V1936 TX-01B 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306888 01V1937 TX-01C 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306889 01V2086 TX-01D 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306890 01V2088 TX-01E 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306891 01V2089 TX-01F 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306892 01V2211 TX-01G 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306893 01V2220 TX-01H 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306894 01V2231 TX-01I 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306895 01V2233 TX-01J 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306896 01V2892 TX-01K 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306897 01V2906 TX-01L 2001 Harris County, TX
EU306898 TDH1121 TX-02A 2002 Nueces County, TX
EU306899 TDH3178 TX-02B 2002 El Paso County, TX
EU306900 TDH3372 TX-02C 2002 Nueces County, TX
EU306901 TDH3438 TX-02D 2002 Jefferson County, TX
EU306902 TDH3439 TX-02E 2002 Jefferson County, TX
EU306903 TDH4074 TX-02F 2002 Nueces County, TX
EU306904 TDH4462 TX-02G 2002 El Paso County, TX
EU306905 TDH5307 TX-02H 2002 Nueces County, TX
EU306906 TDH6983 TX-02I 2002 Nueces County, TX
EU306907 TVP9042 TX-03A 2003 Harris County, TX
EU306908 TVP9041 TX-03B 2003 Harris County, TX
EU306910 LADERLE UNK-66 1966 USA
Open in a new tab

RNA isolation, RT-PCR and sequencing.

RNA was isolated from supernatants harvested from infected cells when cytopathic effect was evident by using the QIAamp viral RNA extraction kit (Qiagen) and following the manufacturer's instructions. Viral RNA was amplified by RT-PCR using the Titan RT-PCR kit (Roche) and primers F880 and B2581 or B2586 (see Kramer & Chandler, 2001 for primer sequences and PCR conditions). PCR products were sequenced directly by standard methods with F880, B2581/B2586, SLE1 (5′-GTGCATGGTTCAACGGACTC-3′) and SLE2 (5′-GGTCACAGAGATGGGAACCC-3′) primers at the Protein Chemistry Core laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, or cloned into pGEM-T Easy (Promega) before sequencing.

Phylogenetic analysis.

Sequences were analysed using ContigExpress and AlignX from the Vector NTI suite (Invitrogen). Neighbour-joining, parsimony and maximum-likelihood phylogenetic trees were constructed using the phylip package (Felsenstein, 1989). All trees were rooted using the E gene sequences of JEV (strain Ling; GenBank accession no. L78128), MVEV (strain 1-51; GenBank accession no. NC_000943) and WNV (strain NY99; GenBank accession no. DQ211652). Recombination was analysed using the Recombination Detection Program (Martin et al., 2005).

RESULTS

Isolates analysed in this study

Since the 2001 publication by Kramer & Chandler (2001) that analysed 62 isolates from the Americas, a number of new isolates and some older isolates of SLEV have been sequenced. Published SLEV sequences since 2001 include 12 isolates from the Coachella Valley in California (Reisen et al., 2002), two 2005 isolates from Argentina (Diaz et al., 2006) and one 2004 human isolate from Brazil (Santos et al., 2006). During our study, we have determined the E gene sequence of 25 isolates from Texas, one from Jamaica and two from California.

Phylogenetic analysis of 106 isolates of SLEV

Phylogenetic analysis of the E protein gene sequences of all available (106) SLEV isolates confirmed the classification of SLEV into seven major lineages as proposed by Kramer & Chandler (2001), but indicated that further refinement of the clades within these lineages was justified. Several different methods for the construction of phylogenetic trees were performed, including neighbour joining (see Fig. 1), parsimony and maximum likelihood (data not shown). All of these methods confirmed the same seven lineages (I–VII); however, there was some variation in the exact order of branching within each lineage. A total of 13 clades were identified (IA, IB, IIA, IIB, IIC, IID, IIG, III, IV, VA, VB, VI and VII). All SLEV isolates exhibited high levels of identity (above 89.9 %), with identity within lineages even higher (>94.5 %), resulting in inconsistencies in minor branching when different tree construction methods were used. However, most bootstrap values for major branches were high (Fig. 1), showing that division of SLEV into the seven major lineages is robust.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Neighbour-joining tree of the E gene of all available SLEV isolates. Numbers at nodes are percent bootstrap (of 100 replicates). Isolates are named according to location and year of isolation. CA, California; TX, Texas; NM, New Mexico; CO, Colorado; MS, Mississippi; KY, Kentucky; MO, Missouri; TN, Tennessee; MD, Maryland; FL, Florida; JAM, Jamaica; MEX, Mexico; BRA, Brazil; ARG, Argentina; GUA, Guatemala; TRIN, Trinidad; PAN, Panama; PER, Peru; UNK, unknown USA location. See Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1 for strain designations. The tree was rooted with JEV (GenBank accession no. L78128), MVEV (GenBank accession no. NC_000943) and WNV (GenBank accession no. DQ211652), but these have been removed to allow better visualization of branch lengths.

Re-evaluation of some SLEV nucleotide sequences

Recent sequencing of full-length SLEV genomes (GenBank accession nos EF158048–EF158070, G. J. Baillie, E. Waltari & S. L. Perkins, unpublished) has revealed some discrepancies between the previously published E sequences of two SLEV strains: Parton [MO-33; GenBank accession nos AF205509 and EF158070, see Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1 (available in JGV Online) for isolate details] and GMO-94 (GUA-69; GenBank accession nos AF205513 and EF158051). Our sequence of MO-33 is identical to that of the Brazilian isolate, SpAn9398 (BRA-68) (Kramer & Chandler, 2001). The MO-33 strain E gene was resequenced in this study by cloning the PCR product into a shuttle plasmid (pGEM-T Easy) and sequencing four representative clones. These clones were all identical to the published sequence of BRA-68. Unfortunately, BRA-68 was not available for use in this study. It has been proposed that GUA-69 resulted from a recombination between SLEV strains CorAn9124 (ARG-66; GenBank accession no. AF289617) and TNM4-711K (TN-74; GenBank accession no. AF205501) (Twiddy & Holmes, 2003). Our sequence for GUA-69 is similar to TN-74 (98.7 % identity) with no evidence of the virus being a recombinant (data not shown).

SLEV isolates from California are found in multiple lineages

Two of the newly sequenced strains, BFN1324 (CA-70B) and BFS508 (CA-50), fall within clade IA. Of the other previously sequenced Californian isolates, those isolated before 1970 occur in this clade, while subsequent isolates from 1985 to 1998 fall within clade IB along with isolates from Texas and New Mexico, or clade IIC along with isolates from Tennessee and Maryland (Kramer & Chandler, 2001), while the recent isolates, from 1998 to 2001 (Reisen et al., 2002), fall in clade VA.

A 1962 isolate from Jamaica groups with older, widespread USA isolates

The Jamaican isolate sequenced in this study, J7532 (JAM-62), groups with isolates from the USA in clade IIA. This clade, which now appears to be extinct, includes the original SLEV isolate from the 1933 outbreak in Missouri (MO-33), along with other pre-1969 isolates from across the USA.

Phylogenetic distribution of Texas isolates

Most recent isolates from Texas were obtained from the Gulf Coast counties (Jefferson, Harris and Nueces) in 1991 and 2001–2003. Sequences of these isolates showed a very low level of nucleotide divergence (between 98.1 and 100 % identity), and indeed, most of the changes are non-coding, with many of these isolates having identical amino acid sequences. All isolates grouped in clade IIB with other Texas Gulf Coast isolates from 1983 [83V4953 (TX-83)], 1991 [PV1-2419 (TX-91)] and 1998 [98V3181 (TX-98)], a 1974 Tennessee isolate (TN-74) and two Guatemalan strains [GUA-69 and 78A28 (GUA-U)]. Thus, only clade IIB contains isolates from these Texas Gulf Coast counties. Pre-2002 isolates from northern counties in Texas, such as Dallas, Hale and El Paso counties, are in clade IB, while two 2002 isolates from El Paso (sequenced in this study) are in clade VA along with older isolates from Peru, Argentina and Brazil and recent (1998–2001) isolates from the Coachella Valley in California. Both El Paso isolates are identical and show between 99.7 and 100 % identity with 1998–2001 isolates from the Coachella Valley in California, but only 91.8–92.4 % identity with the 2001–2002 Gulf Coast Texas isolates. A 1987 El Paso isolate [PV7-3389 (TX-87)] has only 91.8 % identity with the new isolates. TX-87 shares greater identity with isolates from Dallas and Hale County (north Texas) from 1966, 1968 and 1989 than with any other Texan isolate. A number of strains from unknown locations in Texas isolated in the 1950s and an isolate from the same era from the Rio Grande Valley are in clade IIA.

Variation in the E protein amino acid sequence

Comparison of the 501 aa in the E protein of all the available sequenced SLEV strains reveals a limited number of amino acid substitutions across all the sequences. A number of changes are specific for individual lineages, as shown in Table 2, and some define specific nodes in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2). The positions of the amino acid changes specific for different lineages are shown on the WNV E protein structure in Fig. 3. Although these changes occurred across all three domains in the E protein ectodomain, they clustered on the surface of the protein in domains I and III. None of these changes correspond with any previously published virulence factors, none appear to be in functionally important regions and there is no evidence of antigenic variation.

Table 2.

Envelope protein amino acid changes specific to lineages

Amino acid Consensus Lineage
IA IB IIA IIB IIC IID IIG III IV VA VB VI VII
29 S – – – – – – – – – – – – G
51 T – – – – – – A – – – – – –
66 D – – – – – – – – – – – – N
126 T I – – – – – – – – – – – –
151 S – – – – – – – – T – – T –
156 S – – F/S – F/S – F – – F/S F/S – A
161 K – Q – – – – – – – – – – –
176 F Y Y – – – – – – – – – – –
201 Y – – – – – – – – – – – H –
310 T – – – – – – – – – – – – I
316 T A A T/A T/A – – – T/A A A A A –
344 A – – – – – – – – V/L – – – –
384 I – – – – – – – – – – – – V
391 T – T/S – – – – – – A – – – –
442 V – I – – – – – – – – – – –
487 A – – – – – – T – – – – – –
488 V – – – – – – – – – – – – T
Open in a new tab

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Simplified tree summarizing the phylogenetic relationships of the SLEV lineages, geographical location and number of isolates in each lineage and the amino acid changes associated with specific lineages.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Position of amino acid changes on the envelope. Domain I is coloured blue, domain II is coloured green, domain III is coloured red and the transmembrane domain is coloured yellow. (a) Three dimensional location of changes using the WNV E structure (PDB 2HG0), side view. The bottom surface of the protein interacts with the virion. (b) Position on the linear E protein.

There was no apparent relationship between glycosylation status and lineage. SLEV has previously been shown to encode two potential glycosylation sites in the E protein (Trent et al., 1987; Vorndam et al., 1993). Although some strains are non-glycosylated, either by mutation of the glycosylation motif or by not utilizing the coded sites (Vorndam et al., 1993), the site at position 154 is conserved in most other flaviviruses, with the exception of some strains of yellow fever virus (Ballinger-Crabtree & Miller, 1990; Schlesinger et al., 1983), WNV (Adams et al., 1995; Wengler et al., 1985; Wright, 1982) and Alfuy virus (May et al., 2006), and is most likely to be the position that is glycosylated. Of the 106 SLEV sequences used in this study, only 14 do not code for this glycosylation site (Ser to Phe or Tyr at position 156), while 45 isolates do not code for the second potential glycosylation site at position 314 (Thr to Ala at position 316).

DISCUSSION

The current study aimed to expand the phylogenetic analysis of SLEV by Kramer & Chandler (2001) by incorporating isolates sequenced since 2001, focusing in particular on new isolates from Texas. Twenty-eight new isolates and 78 sequences from GenBank were included in this study; in total 106 E gene sequences were analysed. Of the 28 new isolates, 25 were from Texas, including isolates from 1991 and 2001–2003. Interestingly, no isolates of SLEV were obtained in Harris County in 2004 or 2006, and only one isolate in 2005 (R. B. Tesh, unpublished data). Although we lack statistical evidence to draw specific conclusions regarding the lack of SLEV isolates in those years, it is interesting to note that the paucity of SLEV isolates has been seen following the introduction of WNV into this area. Furthermore, when WNV arrived in Texas in 2002, mosquito pools were found to have both SLEV and WNV viruses (Lillibridge et al., 2004), while this has not been observed subsequently (R. B. Tesh, unpublished data). This is consistent with the situation in California (Fang & Reisen, 2006). This situation may, in part, be explained by the relatively high prevalence of WNV antibodies in birds in regions with circulation of both viruses, a condition which inhibits SLEV virus replication in WNV-immune birds (Fang & Reisen, 2006). Surveillance of SLEV isolates in all areas of the USA over the next few years may determine if WNV is indeed replacing SLEV.

The geographical range of SLEV isolates in each clade is shown in Fig. 2. Kramer & Chandler (2001) described the division of SLEV isolates into seven genetic lineages (I–VII), mostly corresponding to their geographical location. The isolates newly sequenced in this study were distributed among lineages I, II and V, and the inclusion of other sequences published since 2001 has also allowed lineage III, previously containing only one isolate from Argentina, to be further defined.

Lineages IV, VI and VII contain South American isolates only and are basal to the other lineages in the tree, suggesting that these lineages are older. Lineage V is a combination of Central and South American strains, plus North American strains from California and West Texas, while lineages I and II are composed of isolates from North America only, suggesting that SLEV originated in South America and has subsequently spread into North America, probably on multiple occasions. Lineage I is divided into two clades containing isolates from the western parts of the USA, with clade IA composed of three Californian isolates from 1953, 1963 and 1970 and clade IB composed of other, more recent (1978 and 1983) isolates from California, older viruses from New Mexico and Colorado, and viruses from west and north Texas isolated between 1966 and 1989. The two newly sequenced isolates from California, CA-70B and CA-50, isolated in 1970 and 1950, respectively, fall into clade IA along with the three other Californian isolates from the same era. All isolates from California after the late 1980s are in lineage II, suggesting that the isolates circulating in California after this time were introduced from South America, and may have replaced the previously circulating isolates.

Lineage II is heterogeneous and contains isolates from throughout the USA. This lineage has 58 isolates and was divided by Kramer & Chandler (2001) into six major clades (A–F). The addition of the new isolates sequenced in this study has allowed greater differentiation of the clades in this lineage, resulting in improved resolution. A 1962 isolate from Tampa Bay, Florida, GHA-3 (FL-62A), was designated clade IIB by Kramer & Chandler (2001), but in the phylogenetic trees constructed using the expanded collection of sequences available for this study, this isolate consistently groups closer to clades IIA, IIC and IID than IIB, and should be considered in a clade of its own, designated IIG. Recent sequence data by Baillie and others (unpublished data available on GenBank) and confirmed by this study, suggest errors in the previously published sequences of MO-33 and GUA-69. Our MO-33 sequence is identical to BRA-68, and therefore falls into clade IIA. With this change, MO-37 also falls in this clade, resulting in the removal of the clade previously designated IIE. The Guatemalan isolate, GUA-69, was previously thought to be the only example of a recombinant of SLEV (Twiddy & Holmes, 2003), but recent sequencing has shown this strain to be a unique, non-recombined virus, most closely related to, but not identical to, TN-74. It therefore falls into clade IIB, removing clade IIF. In summary, lineage II previously contained six clades, IIA–IIF. With the addition of these isolates, this lineage now contains five clades: IIA, IIB, IIC, IID and IIG; clades IIE and IIF have been removed.

Twenty-five of the 28 isolates sequenced in this study were isolated in Texas, and all of those isolated from the Gulf Coast counties (Harris, Jefferson and Nueces County) fall into clade IIB, while those from El Paso County fall into clade VA. Clade IIB includes isolates from the 1980s and 1990s from the Gulf Coast region of Texas, TX-91A (Nueces County), TX-83 and TX-98 (both Harris County), a 1974 isolate from Tenessee (TN-74), and the resequenced GUA-69. In this clade, isolates TN-74 and GUA-69 are the most divergent from the Texas strains; sharing between 97.6 and 98.0 % identity with the other isolates, suggesting that this clade was introduced to Texas between the late 1970s and early 1980s, and has remained the dominant clade in the Gulf Coast region since that time. The Harris County isolates from 1998, 2001 and 2003, and the Jefferson County isolates from 2002 share the greatest identity (ranging from 99.1 to 99.9 %). Many of these nucleotide differences are non-coding changes, with the Jefferson County isolates having an identical amino acid sequence to the 1998 isolate from Harris County and many of the 2001 Harris County isolates (data not shown). The isolates from Nueces County are slightly more divergent, sharing between 98.1 and 98.6 % identity with the Harris and Jefferson County isolates, respectively. This was expected, given the geographical location of these counties, with Jefferson County being adjacent to Harris County, while Nueces County is more distant.

The two new isolates from El Paso County (western Texas) fall within clade VA with several temporally diverse isolates from Central and South America, and recent isolates from California. These El Paso isolates show greater identity to these isolates than any other isolates from Texas (99.7 and 100 % identity with the California isolates compared with only 91.8–92.4 % identity with the Gulf Coast Texas isolates). These data suggest that in this region of Texas, isolates have been introduced from California or South America rather than other parts of Texas, and originate from a different introduction to that of the Gulf Coast isolates. Sequencing of additional isolates from areas around the USA/Mexico border over the last 20 years would allow stronger conclusions to be made.

The results shown in this study, in particular those relating to the Texas Gulf Coast isolates, show that the same strain of SLEV circulates from year to year with little sequence divergence, suggesting that rather than being reintroduced every year, the virus survives the winter. The method of overwintering of SLEV in Texas has yet to be determined. A number of possible methods have been proposed in the past, depending on whether the virus remains local from year to year, or if the virus is reintroduced from tropical and subtropical areas each year. Isolates in the cooler, temperate regions of Texas, such as El Paso, share more in common, genetically, with Californian and South American isolates, suggesting that in this part of Texas, SLEV isolates are reintroduced from warmer regions, while in the case of the subtropical Gulf Coast region of Texas, where mosquito vectors may be active throughout the year, the genetic similarity of temporally diverse isolates implies overwintering rather than reintroduction, possibly by maintenance within the mosquito population during the colder months. Interestingly, a similar conclusion was drawn from a recent study of WNV over time in the Harris County area since its introduction in 2002, suggesting that the virus overwinters rather than annual reintroductions (Davis et al., 2007a).

Like many other arboviruses that utilize an arthropod host in addition to a mammalian or avian host (Ciota et al., 2007; Holmes, 2003; Jerzak et al., 2005; Weaver & Barrett, 2004; Weaver, 2006; Woelk & Holmes, 2002), isolates of SLEV do not exhibit a high level of genetic diversity; indeed, the most genetically diverse isolates have only 10.1 % nucleotide divergence and strains within each lineage show less than 5.5 % nucleotide divergence (data not shown). Interestingly, this contrasts with the closely related viruses in the JEV complex, JEV and WNV, both of which show a higher level of divergence between strains [up to 22.6 % nucleotide and 11.2 % amino acid divergence between the most divergent JEV isolates (Uchil & Satchidanandam, 2001; Yamanaka et al., 2006) and up to 24.6 % nucleotide and 11.8 % amino acid divergence between WNV isolates (Berthet et al., 1997; Charrel et al., 2003; Lanciotti et al., 1999, 2002; Scherret et al., 2001)]. In contrast, MVEV and SLEV show low levels of divergence [(10.1 % nucleotide and 2.4 % amino acid divergence for MVEV (Johansen et al., 2007; Lobigs et al., 1988) and 10 % nucleotide and 2.8 % amino acid divergence for SLEV)]. SLEV does not have an inherently lower mutation rate than WNV, indeed under certain conditions SLEV mutates at a faster rate, as observed when both viruses were serially passaged in C6/36 cells (Ciota et al., 2007). These differences may relate to different selection pressures between the different viruses due to differing geographical locations and transmission cycles. In comparison to the geographical distribution of SLEV (confined to the New World only), WNV has a very large and diverse geographical distribution. Isolates are found in Africa, Europe, India, Australia and now the Americas. In general, outside of frequent gene exchange between Africa and Europe (Charrel et al., 2003; Lanciotti et al., 2002), and the introduction of WNV into North America from the Middle East (Lanciotti et al., 1999), greater genetic diversity of WNV corresponds to a greater geographical range of isolates. In particular, WNV isolates from India or Australia are genetically distinct from other WNV isolates from Africa and Europe, but show little diversity within these geographical regions (Beasley et al., 2002; Lanciotti et al., 1999, 2002; Savage et al., 1999; Scherret et al., 2001). Indeed, isolates of WNV from the Gulf Coast region of Texas share similar levels of divergence as SLEV isolates from the same region (Davis et al., 2007b). In contrast, the higher genetic diversity of JEV in comparison to other viruses may correspond to the different ecological cycle of this virus. Unlike most other viruses in the JEV complex, JEV utilizes pigs as an amplifying host in addition to birds (Halstead & Jacobson, 2003). All of the five genotypes of JEV circulate in Asia, where the human, bird and pig hosts all live in high densities and in close proximity to each other, allowing increased efficiency of infection and higher mutation rates (Gould et al., 2003; Halstead & Jacobson, 2003). In contrast, MVEV has a limited geographical distribution, found in Australia and Papua New Guinea only (Johansen et al., 2007; Lobigs et al., 1988), where the vertebrate hosts are sparsely distributed. SLEV, found only in the Americas, has a limited geographical distribution compared with WNV, and unlike JEV, does not include pigs in its transmission cycle, utilizing mainly avian vertebrate hosts (Day, 2001). The amino acid changes observed in SLEV do not correspond to any known virulence determinants, and are likely the result of neutral mutations not affecting fitness or virulence rather than positive selection.

Supplementary Material

[Supplementary table]
supp_89_8_1901__index.html (675B, html)

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NIH grants R01 AI 45559 (to L. C., S. H. and A. D. T. B.) and R01 AI 67847 (to A. D. T. B.) and NIH contracts N01-AI 25489 and N01-AI30027 (to R. B. T.).

References

  1. Adams, S. C., Broom, A. K., Sammels, L. M., Hartnett, A. C., Howard, M. J., Coelen, R. J., Mackenzie, J. S. & Hall, R. A. (1995). Glycosylation and antigenic variation among Kunjin virus isolates. Virology 206, 49–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, C. L., Eldridge, B. F., Hayes, D. E., Watts, D. M., Tammariello, R. F. & Dalrymple, J. M. (1978). Isolation of St Louis encephalitis virus from overwintering Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Science 199, 1346–1349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ballinger-Crabtree, M. E. & Miller, B. R. (1990). Partial nucleotide sequence of South American yellow fever virus strain 1899/81: structural proteins and NS1. J Gen Virol 71, 2115–2121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beasley, D. W., Li, L., Suderman, M. T. & Barrett, A. D. (2002). Mouse neuroinvasive phenotype of West Nile virus strains varies depending upon virus genotype. Virology 296, 17–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berthet, F. X., Zeller, H. G., Drouet, M. T., Rauzier, J., Digoutte, J. P. & Deubel, V. (1997). Extensive nucleotide changes and deletions within the envelope glycoprotein gene of Euro-African West Nile viruses. J Gen Virol 78, 2293–2297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carey, D. E., Reuben, R. & Myers, R. M. (1968a). Japanese encephalitis studies in Vellore, South India. I. Virus isolation from mosquitoes. Indian J Med Res 56, 1309–1318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carey, D. E., Rodrigues, F. M., Myers, R. M. & Webb, J. K. (1968b). Arthropod-borne viral infections in children in Vellore, South India, with particular reference to dengue and West Nile viruses. Indian Pediatr 5, 285–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chandler, L. J., Parsons, R. & Randle, Y. (2001). Multiple genotypes of St. Louis encephalitis virus (Flaviviridae: Flavivirus) circulate in Harris County, Texas. Am J Trop Med Hyg 64, 12–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Charrel, R. N., Brault, A. C., Gallian, P., Lemasson, J. J., Murgue, B., Murri, S., Pastorino, B., Zeller, H., de Chesse, R. & other authors (2003). Evolutionary relationship between Old World West Nile virus strains. Evidence for viral gene flow between Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Virology 315, 381–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ciota, A. T., Lovelace, A. O., Ngo, K. A., Le, A. N., Maffei, J. G., Franke, M. A., Payne, A. F., Jones, S. A., Kauffman, E. B. & Kramer, L. D. (2007). Cell-specific adaptation of two flaviviruses following serial passage in mosquito cell culture. Virology 357, 165–174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis, C. T., Galbraith, S. E., Zhang, S., Whiteman, M. C., Li, L., Kinney, R. M. & Barrett, A. D. (2007a). A combination of naturally occurring mutations in North American West Nile virus nonstructural protein genes and in the 3′ untranslated region alters virus phenotype. J Virol 81, 6111–6116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis, C. T., Li, L., May, F. J., Bueno, R., Jr, Dennett, J. A., Bala, A. A., Guzman, H., Quiroga-Elizondo, D., Tesh, R. B. & Barrett, A. D. (2007b). Genetic stasis of dominant West Nile virus genotype, Houston, Texas. Emerg Infect Dis 13, 601–604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Day, J. F. (2001). Predicting St. Louis encephalitis virus epidemics: lessons from recent, and not so recent, outbreaks. Annu Rev Entomol 46, 111–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Day, J. F. & Stark, L. M. (1999). Avian serology in a St. Louis encephalitis epicenter before, during, and after a widespread epidemic in south Florida, USA. J Med Entomol 36, 614–624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Diaz, L. A., Re, V., Almiron, W. R., Farías, A., Vázquez, A., Sanchez-Seco, M. P., Aguilar, J., Spinsanti, L., Konigheim, B. & other authors (2006). Genotype III Saint Louis encephalitis virus outbreak, Argentina, 2005. Emerg Infect Dis 12, 1752–1754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fang, Y. & Reisen, W. K. (2006). Previous infection with West Nile or St. Louis encephalitis viruses provides cross protection during reinfection in house finches. Am J Trop Med Hyg 75, 480–485. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Felsenstein, J. (1989). phylip – phylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5, 164–166. [Google Scholar]
  18. Francy, D. B., Rush, W. A., Montoya, M., Inglish, D. S. & Bolin, R. A. (1981). Transovarial transmission of St. Louis encephalitis virus by Culex pipiens complex mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 30, 699–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gould, E. A., de Lamballerie, X., Zanotto, P. M. & Holmes, E. C. (2003). Origins, evolution, and vector/host coadaptations within the genus Flavivirus. Adv Virus Res 59, 277–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hall, R. A., Broom, A. K., Smith, D. W. & Mackenzie, J. S. (2002). The ecology and epidemiology of Kunjin virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 267, 253–269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Halstead, S. B. & Jacobson, J. (2003). Japanese encephalitis. Adv Virus Res 61, 103–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hardy, J. L., Rosen, L., Kramer, L. D., Presser, S. B., Shroyer, D. A. & Turell, M. J. (1980). Effect of rearing temperature on transovarial transmission of St. Louis encephalitis virus in mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 29, 963–968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hardy, J. L., Rosen, L., Reeves, W. C., Scrivani, R. P. & Presser, S. B. (1984). Experimental transovarial transmission of St. Louis encephalitis virus by Culex and Aedes mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 33, 166–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes, E. C. (2003). Patterns of intra- and interhost nonsynonymous variation reveal strong purifying selection in dengue virus. J Virol 77, 11296–11298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jerzak, G., Bernard, K. A., Kramer, L. D. & Ebel, G. D. (2005). Genetic variation in West Nile virus from naturally infected mosquitoes and birds suggests quasispecies structure and strong purifying selection. J Gen Virol 86, 2175–2183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Johansen, C. A., van den Hurk, A. F., Ritchie, S. A., Zborowski, P., Nisbet, D. J., Paru, R., Bockarie, M. J., Macdonald, J., Drew, A. C. & other authors (2000). Isolation of Japanese encephalitis virus from mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) collected in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, 1997–1998. Am J Trop Med Hyg 62, 631–638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Johansen, C. A., Susai, V., Hall, R. A., Mackenzie, J. S., Clark, D. C., May, F. J., Hemmerter, S., Smith, D. W. & Broom, A. K. (2007). Genetic and phenotypic differences between isolates of Murray Valley encephalitis virus in Western Australia, 1972–2003. Virus Genes 35, 147–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kay, B. H., Fanning, I. D. & Carley, J. G. (1984). The vector competence of Australian Culex annulirostris with Murray Valley encephalitis and Kunjin viruses. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci 62, 641–650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kramer, L. D. & Chandler, L. J. (2001). Phylogenetic analysis of the envelope gene of St. Louis encephalitis virus. Arch Virol 146, 2341–2355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kramer, L. D., Presser, S. B., Hardy, J. L. & Jackson, A. O. (1997). Genotypic and phenotypic variation of selected Saint Louis encephalitis viral strains isolated in California. Am J Trop Med Hyg 57, 222–229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lanciotti, R. S., Roehrig, J. T., Deubel, V., Smith, J., Parker, M., Steele, K., Crise, B., Volpe, K. E., Crabtree, M. B. & other authors (1999). Origin of the West Nile virus responsible for an outbreak of encephalitis in the northeastern United States. Science 286, 2333–2337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lanciotti, R. S., Ebel, G. D., Deubel, V., Kerst, A. J., Murri, S., Meyer, R., Bowen, M., McKinney, N., Morrill, W. E. & other authors (2002). Complete genome sequences and phylogenetic analysis of West Nile virus strains isolated from the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. Virology 298, 96–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lillibridge, K. M., Parsons, R., Randle, Y., Travassos da Rosa, A. P., Guzman, H., Siirin, M., Wuithiranyagool, T., Hailey, C., Higgs, S. & other authors (2004). The 2002 introduction of West Nile virus into Harris County, Texas, an area historically endemic for St. Louis encephalitis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 70, 676–681. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lobigs, M., Marshall, I. D., Weir, R. C. & Dalgarno, L. (1988). Murray Valley encephalitis virus field strains from Australia and Papua New Guinea: studies on the sequence of the major envelope protein gene and virulence for mice. Virology 165, 245–255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Luby, J. P., Miller, G., Gardner, P., Pigford, C. A., Henderson, B. E. & Eddins, D. (1967). The epidemiology of St. Louis encephalitis in Houston, Texas, 1964. Am J Epidemiol 86, 584–597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin, D. P., Williamson, C. & Posada, D. (2005). RDP2: recombination detection and analysis from sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 21, 260–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. May, F. J., Lobigs, M., Lee, E., Gendle, D. J., Mackenzie, J. S., Broom, A. K., Conlan, J. V. & Hall, R. A. (2006). Biological, antigenic and phylogenetic characterization of the flavivirus Alfuy. J Gen Virol 87, 329–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nayar, J. K., Rosen, L. & Knight, J. W. (1986). Experimental vertical transmission of Saint Louis encephalitis virus by Florida mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 35, 1296–1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Reeves, W. C., Bellamy, R. E. & Scrivani, R. P. (1958). Relationships of mosquito vectors to winter survival of encephalitis viruses. I. Under natural conditions. Am J Hyg 67, 78–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Reisen, W. K. (2003). Epidemiology of St. Louis encephalitis virus. Adv Virus Res 61, 139–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Reisen, W. K., Lothrop, H. D., Chiles, R. E., Cusack, R., Green, E. G., Fang, Y. & Kensington, M. (2002). Persistence and amplification of St. Louis encephalitis virus in the Coachella Valley of California, 2000–2001. J Med Entomol 39, 793–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Santos, C. L., Sallum, M. A., Franco, H. M., Oshiro, F. M. & Rocco, I. M. (2006). Genetic characterization of St. Louis encephalitis virus isolated from human in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 101, 57–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Savage, H. M., Ceianu, C., Nicolescu, G., Karabatsos, N., Lanciotti, R., Vladimirescu, A., Laiv, L., Ungureanu, A., Romanca, C. & Tsai, T. F. (1999). Entomologic and avian investigations of an epidemic of West Nile fever in Romania in 1996, with serologic and molecular characterization of a virus isolate from mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg 61, 600–611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Scherret, J. H., Poidinger, M., Mackenzie, J. S., Broom, A. K., Deubel, V., Lipkin, W. I., Briese, T., Gould, E. A. & Hall, R. A. (2001). The relationships between West Nile and Kunjin viruses. Emerg Infect Dis 7, 697–705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schlesinger, J. J., Brandriss, M. W. & Monath, T. P. (1983). Monoclonal antibodies distinguish between wild and vaccine strains of yellow fever virus by neutralization, hemagglutination inhibition, and immune precipitation of the virus envelope protein. Virology 125, 8–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Thiel, H. J., Collett, M. S., Gould, E. A., Heinz, F. X., Meyers, G., Purcell, R. H., Rice, C. M. & Houghton, M. (2005). Flaviviridae. In Virus Taxonomy, Eighth Report of the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses, pp. 981–998. Edited by C. M. Fauquet, M. A. Mayo, J. Maniloff, U. Desselberger & L. A. Ball. San Diego: Academic Press.
  47. Trent, D. W., Monath, T. P., Bowen, G. S., Vorndam, A. V., Cropp, C. B. & Kemp, G. E. (1980). Variation among strains of St. Louis encephalitis virus: basis for a genetic, pathogenetic, and epidemiologic classification. Ann N Y Acad Sci 354, 219–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Trent, D. W., Kinney, R. M., Johnson, B. J., Vorndam, A. V., Grant, J. A., Deubel, V., Rice, C. M. & Hahn, C. (1987). Partial nucleotide sequence of St. Louis encephalitis virus RNA: structural proteins, NS1, ns2a, and ns2b. Virology 156, 293–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Tsai, T. F., Canfield, M. A., Reed, C. M., Flannery, V. L., Sullivan, K. H., Reeve, G. R., Bailey, R. E. & Poland, J. D. (1988). Epidemiological aspects of a St. Louis encephalitis outbreak in Harris County, Texas, 1986. J Infect Dis 157, 351–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Twiddy, S. S. & Holmes, E. C. (2003). The extent of homologous recombination in members of the genus Flavivirus. J Gen Virol 84, 429–440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Uchil, P. D. & Satchidanandam, V. (2001). Phylogenetic analysis of Japanese encephalitis virus: envelope gene based analysis reveals a fifth genotype, geographic clustering, and multiple introductions of the virus into the Indian subcontinent. Am J Trop Med Hyg 65, 242–251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vorndam, V., Mathews, J. H., Barrett, A. D., Roehrig, J. T. & Trent, D. W. (1993). Molecular and biological characterization of a non-glycosylated isolate of St Louis encephalitis virus. J Gen Virol 74, 2653–2660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Weaver, S. C. (2006). Evolutionary influences in arboviral disease. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 299, 285–314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Weaver, S. C. & Barrett, A. D. (2004). Transmission cycles, host range, evolution and emergence of arboviral disease. Nat Rev Microbiol 2, 789–801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wengler, G., Castle, E., Leidner, U. & Nowak, T. (1985). Sequence analysis of the membrane protein V3 of the flavivirus West Nile virus and of its gene. Virology 147, 264–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Woelk, C. H. & Holmes, E. C. (2002). Reduced positive selection in vector-borne RNA viruses. Mol Biol Evol 19, 2333–2336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wright, P. J. (1982). Envelope protein of the flavivirus Kunjin is apparently not glycosylated. J Gen Virol 59, 29–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yamanaka, T., Tsujimura, K., Kondo, T., Yasuda, W., Okada, A., Noda, K., Okumura, T. & Matsumura, T. (2006). Isolation and genetic analysis of Japanese encephalitis virus from a diseased horse in Japan. J Vet Med Sci 68, 293–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

[Supplementary table]
supp_89_8_1901__index.html (675B, html)
supp_89_8_1901__1.pdf (73.2KB, pdf)

Articles from The Journal of General Virology are provided here courtesy of Microbiology Society

RESOURCES