Table 1.
In vivo outcome of CRPV/ROPV hybrid genomesa
| Construct | Hybrid CRPV/ROPV genome | Skin Papillomas |
Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1m#1 | CRPV E1 sequence 3128–3170 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (42bp or 14 aa) |
Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E1m#2 | CRPV E1 sequence 1999–2017 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (18bp or 6 aa) |
Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E2m#1 | CRPV E2 sequence 4021–4283 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (262bp or ~87 aa) |
Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E2m#2 | CRPV E2 sequence 3128–3382 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (254bp or ~82 aa) |
Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E6m#2 | CRPV E6 and E7 replaced by ROPV E6 and E7 | No | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E6m#3 | CRPV E6 sequence 326–476 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (150bp or 50 aa) |
No | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E6m#4 | CRPV E6 sequence 326–973 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (647bp or ~214 aa) |
No | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| E6m#5 | CRPV E6 sequence 476–973 replaced by corresponding ROPV sequence (497bp or ~132 aa) |
No | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| URRm#2 | Replacement of CRPV URR with ROPV URR | No | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| URRm#6 | Insertion of ROPV URR into CRPV URR | Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2007) |
| L1m#1 | Replacement of CRPV L1 with ROPV L1 | Yes | (Hu, Cladel et al., 2006) |
a
CRPV constructs were made with various substitutions listed above. Each modified/mutant CRPV genome was tested in situ on the back of the rabbit and tested for the ability to generate papillomas in normal immunocompetent NZW rabbits using our delayed scarification technique. In most cases, the viral DNA was assessed genetically to ensure that the mutant genome was the source of the papilloma. We did not assess the infected site to determine whether subclinical infections occurred.