Regional adaptations and parallel mutations in Feline panleukopenia virus strains from China revealed by nearly-full length genome analysis

Élcio Leal; Ruiying Liang; Qi Liu; Fabiola Villanova; Lijun Shi; Lin Liang; Jinxiang Li; Steven S Witkin; Shangjin Cui

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227705

. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0227705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227705

Regional adaptations and parallel mutations in Feline panleukopenia virus strains from China revealed by nearly-full length genome analysis

Élcio Leal ^1,^2,^*,^#, Ruiying Liang ^1,^3,^#, Qi Liu ¹, Fabiola Villanova ², Lijun Shi ^1,³, Lin Liang ^1,³, Jinxiang Li ^1,^*, Steven S Witkin ^4,⁵, Shangjin Cui ^1,^3,^*

Editor: Jianming Qiu⁶

PMCID: PMC6964837 PMID: 31945103

Abstract

Protoparvoviruses, widespread among cats and wild animals, are responsible for leukopenia. Feline panleukopenia virus (FPLV) in domestic cats is genetically diverse and some strains may differ from those used for vaccination. The presence of FPLV in two domestic cats from Hebei Province in China was identified by polymerase chain reaction. Samples from these animals were used to isolate FPLV strains in CRFK cells for genome sequencing. Phylogenetic analysis was performed to compare our isolates with available sequences of FPLV, mink parvovirus (MEV) and canine parvovirus (CPV). The isolated strains were closely related to strains of FPLV/MEV isolated in the 1960s. Our analysis also revealed that the evolutionary history of FPLV and MEV is characterized by local adaptations in the Vp2 gene. Thus, it is likely that new FPLV strains are emerging to evade the anti-FPLV immune response.

1. Introduction

Carnivore protoparvovirus 1 is a member of the family Parvoviridae (subfamily Parvovirinae, genus Protoparvovirus) that includes several closely related viruses such as feline panleukopenia virus (FPLV), the mink enteritis virus (MEV) and canine parvoviruses (CPV) [1–10]. Protoparvoviruses are non-enveloped, small icosahedral viruses having a single-stranded DNA genome of approximately 5 Kb. The expression pattern of these viruses have two open reading frames (ORFs) encoding the non-structural proteins NS1 and NS2) besides the capsid proteins VP1 and VP2 that is generated by alternative splicing [1,11].

FPLV and MEV are highly contagious pathogens that have been endemic in their reservoir hosts [1,3,12–19]. The CPV-like lineage emerged in the late 1970s as a new pathogen following the occurrence of host mutations that allowed binding of the CPV-2 virus capsid proteins to the canine cellular transferrin receptor. [15,17–22]. In addition, key mutations in CVP-2 provided additional selective advantages to some CPV strains enabling them able to spread to domestic dog populations [12,15,23]. It has been suggested that both CPV and MEV are FPLV mutations that have adapted to different host animals [1,3,4,12]. Particularly, amino acids at positions 93 and 323 of the FPLV and CPV Vp2 gene appear to influence antigenicity, and result in differences in the viral surface architecture [15,24,25]. Amino acids at positions 93, 103 and 323 of the Vp2 are critical for the stable replication of CPV in canine-derived cells, while the amino acids present at positions 80, 564, 568 are critical for FPLV replication in feline host [12,13,15,21].

In addition, some wild species such as the raccoon are important reservoir of multiple lineages of protoparvoviruses [13,15,22,23]. In fact, sporadic infections of species other than raccoon or mink have been increasingly reported over time. For example, there are cases of protoparvovirus infecting the giant panda, monkey and civets [3,4,7]. The impressive ability of protoparvovirus to infect different hosts and evade the immune responses by acquisition of mutations in their capsid protein make this virus a serious threat to wild and domestic animals [13,20,21,24–28].

FPLV has a single-stranded DNA genome; the full-length of the genome is approximately 5123 nt and contains two open reading frames (ORFs). The parvovirus genome has hairpin structures at both ends of its genome: 3-terminal Y-type structure and 5-terminal U-shaped structure [29]. These features of the genome make it challenging to amplify the full-length genome of parvovirus.

The diversity of carnivore protoparvoviruses has been described in many studies and seems to be represented by a great variety of strains and recombinant forms [27,30–32]. Conversely, there are few studies describing the heterogeneity of FPLV strains and its relevance to the maintenance of these viruses in distinct hosts [13]. Particularly, the occurrence of multiple FPLV lineages and how they contribute to the dissemination of this virus among distinct species has been explored in only a few studies [1–7,33]. Here we fully characterized two FPLV strains isolated from domestic cats presenting with gastroenteritis. Genome-wide analysis show that these FPLV isolates are distinguished from other FPLV isolates currently circulating in China by differences in several nucleotides and coding for unique amino acids in the Vp2 and Ns1 gene.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Fecal samples of domestic cats

Fecal specimens were obtained by a collaborative program between the Institute of Animal Sciences and private clinics which is aimed at surveying animal infectious diseases in China. All samples were obtained with the owners consent and were collected following the recommendations of the Chinese legislation on animal protection and the guidelines of the Chinese policy and practices in veterinary medicine. Fecal samples were collected from two domestic cats that had clinical signs of suspected parvovirus infection in Hebei Province of China. They showed depression, fever, intense haemorrhagic vomiting, diarrhea, and severe leukopenia.

2.2 Sample treatment and confirmation of FPLV

Samples were placed into collection tubes (Yocon Bio. Co. Ltd., Beijing) and the colloidal immunochromatographic (IC) test strip in the BioNote Rapid Test Kit (BioNote. Inc. 22, Samsung1ro 4gil, Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, 18449, Republic of Korea) was used to determine whether FPLV was present. The fecal samples were mixed with PBS and the filtered supernatants were added to colloidal gold test strips at room temperature, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Total viral DNA was extracted from fecal samples separately using the Aidlab Virus DNA Kit (Beijing Aidlab Biotech Company, Beijing, China), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The extracted DNA was used for detection of FPLV by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using a primer pair (forward: 5’-ACAAGATAAAAGACGTGGTGTAACTCA-3’ and reverse: 5’-AATGGGAAATACAGACTATAT-3’) [33]. The PCR assay was performed in a 20 μL reaction volume that included 2.0 μL of template, 1.0 μL each of VP2-F and VP2-R, 2×Ex Taq mix (TaKaRa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Nojihigashi 7-4-38, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan 525–0058), and sufficient ddH2O to increase the volume to 20 μL. Amplification was carried out as follows: one cycle at 95°C for 5 min; followed by 35 cycles at 95°C for 50 s, 55°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 30 s; and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. Amplicons were detected by electrophoresing 10 μL aliquots in 1.0% agarose gels in 1× TAE [40 mM Tris-acetate (pH 8.0), 1 mM EDTA].

2.3 Cell cultivation and virus isolation

Filtered and diluted samples were immersed in serum-free DMEM medium (DMEM, Gibco, 8717 Grovemont Cir, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, USA), and were clarified by centrifugation at 12,000 rpm/min for 10 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.22 μm Millipore filter (Millipore, Bedford, MA, U.S.A.) for virus isolation in Crandell feline kidney (CRFKATCC® CCL-94^™) cells which contained DMEM supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum at 37°C under 5% CO2. The virus was harvested after three rounds of plaque purification in the primary CRFK cell culture. Subsequently, the culture medium was frozen at -80°C and submitted to further passages following the same procedure after freezing and thawing for three cycles. The culture supernatants were harvested when the typical cytopathic effect (CPE) was observed in 80% of the cells.

2.4 Immunofluorescence assay

CRFK cells were seeded in 96-well plates, and the isolated FPLV strains were added and incubated for 36 h at 37°C under 5% CO₂. The DMEM medium was removed, the cells washed with phosphate buffered saline (PBST, Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) carefully for three cycles. The treated cells were fixed in formaldehyde for 30 min. The primary antibody was added and incubated for 2 h, and after washing in PBST for three cycles the cells were incubated with secondary antibody for 1 h. Then the wells were washed three times by PBST, and incubated with fluorescein isothiocyanate-FITC (Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) or the fluorescent stain DAPI (Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) for 15 min. Finally, the plates were analyzed using a fluorescence inverted microscope. Negative controls were also prepared by the identical protocol.

2.5 Hemagglutinin test

The hemagglutination test was carried out using 1% red blood cells. The treated V-type micro-plate was stored at 4°C for 1–2 h. A positive result was defined as at least 50% red blood cells being hemagglutination positive.

2.6 DNA purification and sequencing

DNA was extracted from the virus in cell culture with the Aidlab Virus DNA Kit (Beijing Aidlab Biotech Company, Beijing, China), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. DNA extracts were used in conventional PCR assays using the Takara LA Taq kit (TaKaRa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Nojihigashi 7-4-38, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan 525–0058) to amplify the genomic fragments of FPLV. The amplification was generally achieved by means of 35 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for50 s, annealing at 55°C for 30 s and polymerization at 72°C for 10 min. After electrophoresis in a 1.0% agarose gel and ethidium bromide staining, the PCR products were excised from the gel and purified by a commercial kit (Sangon Biotech, 695 Xiangmin Rd, Songjiang Qu, Shanghai Shi, China). The PCR products were cloned into pMD18-T vector (TaKaRa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Japan). Amplified DNA was purified and then sequenced using the BigDye Terminator kit, version 3.1 (Applied Biosystems/Perkin Elmer, Foster City, CA). The samples were subjected to electrophoresis on an ABI 3130 genetic analyzer, and the sequencing data were examined using the ABI Sequencing Analysis Software). The molecular characteristics and homology of nucleotide sequences of the nearly entire viral genome were assembled and the deduced amino acids were analyzed using the MegAlign tool included in the Lasergene software package (DNASTAR, Inc.3801 Regent St.Madison, WI 53,705 USA).

2.7 Sequence analysis

Initially we used BLAST suite (blastn and blastx) to identify viral sequences through their similarity to annotated genomes in Genbank. Based on the best hits of blastn search 56 near-full length genomes were chosen for the following analyses. Based on the best hits of blastn search complete genomes of carnivorous parvoviruses were chosen for the analyses. These genomes were then aligned using Clustal X software [34]. Subsequently, a phylogenetic tree was constructed by the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach assuming Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano model plus a discrete Gamma distribution (with five categories and an estimated alpha parameter = 3.1840) and the rate of invariable sites of 54.73%. All phylogenetic analyses and tree edition were conducted using MEGAX software [35].

2.8 Detection of recombination

To determine if our FPLV strains were free of recombination, we used the software RDP v.4 [36], which utilizes a collection of methods, an excellent and detailed explanation of each method implemented in the RDP program can be found in the user’s manual (http://darwin.uvigo.es/rdp/rdp.html). Initially, we used all methods implemented in the RDP and the default parameters; these parameters were then optimized to avoid detection of false positive recombinations. In addition, window sizes of 20 to 150 as well as Bonferroni correction with p-values of 0.05 and 0.001 were utilized.

2.9 Amino acid ancestral reconstruction

Ancestral states were inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method under the Whelan and Goldman model [37]. The tree shows a set of possible amino acids (states) at each ancestral node based on their inferred likelihood at site 1. The initial tree was inferred using this method. The rates among sites were treated as a Gamma distribution using 5 Gamma Categories (Gamma Distribution option). The coding data were translated assuming a Standard genetic code table. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. Ancestral reconstructions and evolutionary distances analyses were conducted in MEGAX.

3. Results

3.1. Confirmation of FPLV in the fecal samples by rapid test and PCR

Fecal samples were diluted and then prepared for screening using both the colloidal gold strip test and PCR. One example of a positive sample is shown in Fig 1. The left panels of the figure show the result of the colloidal gold test strip, the upper panel is a negative control sample (Fig 1A1) and the lower panel is a positive sample (Fig 1A2). Samples were also screened using a PCR assay. The right panel in the figure shows a positive PCR control (lane 2), one positive sample (lane 3) and a negative PCR control (lane 4). The PCR positive samples presented with a band at 83 base pairs (bp), according to the expected amplicon size when using primers described previously [33].

Fig 1 — A Detection of the FPLV antigen by colloidal gold test strip. A1 negative control, A2 positive sample. B Detection of FPLV in samples by PCR. Lanes 1 and 5 DNA marker; Lane 2 positive control; Lane 3 positive sample Lane 4 negative control.

3.2. Morphological changes in FPLV-infected cells and identification of FPLV by HA and IFA

CRFK cells were incubated with the FPLV strains and a typical cytopathic effect of the virus was observed in after the 3rd passage. FPLV-infected cells showed extensive regions of cell detachment (Panel A in Fig 2).

Fig 2 — Panel A shows the cytopathic effect induced by FPLV in CRFK cells visualized by inverted microscopy at magnification of 200 μm 72 hours post infection. Panel B is the negative control of uninfected CRFK cells.

The hemagglutination test (HA) was carried out by reacting the virus with 1% porcine red blood cells at 4°C for 1–2 h. The ability to agglutinate the porcine red blood cells is consistent with the characteristics of FPLV. FPLV strains were also subjected to three rounds of plaque purification in CRFK cells. Afterwards, an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) of our FPLV strains in CRFK cells was performed The positive group exhibits specific green (FITC) and blue (DAPI) fluorescences while the control group had no fluorescence (Fig 3, panel A).

Fig 3 — Immunofluorescence staining of CRFK cells after infection with FPLV. Panels A and B indicate nucleous stained with DAPI. C) Mock-infected controls. Uninfected CRFK cells served as a negative control (D). A green color indicates positive Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) staining and blue indicated the nuclear stained with DAPI of FPLV infected cells. Scaled indicate of 200 μm of magnification.

3.3. Analysis of the nearly complete FPLV genomes

The genomes of the FPLV strains were fully characterized. These strains were isolated between 2014 and 2015 in domestic cats from Hubei, a province in China. Sequences generated in this study, denoted herein as LSJ-2014 (Genbank number: MH165481) and CSJ-2015 (Genbank number: MH165482), have 99% nucleotide identity and 100% of genome coverage to some FPLV, MEV and CPV strains from Genbank (FVP: M38246, KX900570, KP769859, MEV: D00765 and CPV: M38245). Both isolates LSJ-2014 and CSJ-2015 have genomes of 5118 nt in length and contain the ORFs: NS1 that encodes a protein of 668 amino acids that starts at position 267 and ends at position 2270 of the genome; VP1 that encodes a protein of 727 amino acids generated by the alternative splicing of the fragment located at positions 2280–2308 plus the fragment corresponding to positions 2381–4535; the VP2 that encodes a protein of 668 amino acids that starts at position 2781 and ends at position 4535 of the genome. Table 1 shows differences in the amino acids of the NS1, VP1 and VP2 proteins between the isolates LSJ-2014 and CSJ-2015.

Table 1. Differences in the amino acid composition between LSJ-2014 and CSJ-2015.

FPLV Isolate	Protein
FPLV Isolate	NS1	VP1
LSJ-2014	11T, 93N, 247Y, 370I	35S, 50L, 71T
CSJ-2015	11M,93D, 247H,370M	35F, 50F, 71N

Open in a new tab

IUPAC code: A = Alanine; C = Cysteine; D = Aspartic Acid; E = Glutamic Acid; F = Phenylalanine; G = Glycine; H = Histidine; I = Isoleucine; K = Lysine; L = Leucine; M = Methionine;N = Asparagine; P = Proline; Q = Glutamine; R = Arginine; S = Serine; T = Threonine; V = Valine; W = Tryptophan; Y = Tyrosine

3.4. Analysis of nearly completed genomes of carnivorous parvoviruses

For comparative purposes full length genomes of FPLV, CPV and MEV were analyzed. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree inferred with most of the complete genomes of CPV, FPLV and MEV showed that CPV forms a well separated clade from FVP and MEV sequences (Fig 4). Particularly, the CPV clade has clusters of sequences that represent strains from some geographical regions such as CPV2c from Uruguay. It is also seen that CPV infecting raccoons in the USA that were sampled in 2007 and 2009 cluster together at the base of the tree. Conversely, FPLV and MEV clustered in the same phylogroup which is expected because these viruses are related to some extent. FPLV strains generated in this study (LSJ-2014 and CSJ-2015) are indicated in the tree by a gray arrow. They are located at the base of the cluster identified by #3 which is formed by strains from raccoons and historical strains (i.e., those isolated in 1960s and early 1980s before the virus adapt and spread in domestic dogs) from wild and domestic cats. Interestingly, FPLV strains isolated in distinct species intermingled in the tree, with the exception of a cluster of MEV from China (identified by #2 in the tree of Fig 4). For example, the cluster #3 formed by FPLV from raccoons (isolated between 2010 and 2016) also includes FPLV strains from domestic cats isolated between 1967 and 2006. Besides the cluster formed by MEV from China (#2) there is also another cluster containing strains from domestic cats and one strains from jaguars (identified by #2 in the tree of Fig 4).

Fig 4 — The tree was inferred using a maximum likelihood (ML) approach assuming HKY model plus a discrete Gamma correction and the rate of invariable sites. The FPLV strains isolated in this study are indicated by red arrow in the tree. Branch support is indicated by a colored scale and were obtained by the approximate likelihood ratio test (aLRT) where one is the highest score. Black diamonds indicate the position of the historical FPLV strains; those that were isolated prior or near the spread of CPV in domestic dogs. Some clusters of FPLV or MEV that are discussed in the manuscript are indicated by the symbol #. Values inside the gray areas indicate the genetic distances of each clade. The Genbank identification of all sequences used in the analyses are listed in Material and Methods. Phylogenetic analyses and estimation of genetic distances were conducted with MEGAX software.

3.5. NS1, VP1 and VP2 trees of carnivorous parvoviruses

We were interested to know if the topology of trees constructed using the main parvoviral genes would match to the pattern of relatedness observed in the genome tree. Therefore we used the same set of complete genomes and partitioned the alignment into tree segments corresponding to the genes Ns1, Vp1 and Vp2, and the partitions were used to infer maximum likelihood trees (Fig 5). These trees showed that the same strains were included in three main phylogroups, designated #1, #2 and #3, the exceptions were strains LSJ-2014, CSJ-2015 (indicated by a blue arrow in the trees of Fig 5), KP769859 (detected in 2016 in a domestic cat in Belgium), KX434461 and KX434462 (indicated by green arrows in the trees of the Fig 5) both detected in Italy in 2015 from domestic cats.

Fig 5 — Partitions corresponding to the genes *Ns1*, *Vp1* and *Vp2* were used to construct trees and show the clustering pattern of sequences. The upper panel shows the tree inferred using the partitions corresponding to the *Ns1* gene of parvoviruses (2004 nucleotides long). The lower panels in the figure show the trees inferred using the *Vp1* gene region with 2182 nucleotides and the *Vp2* gene with 1753 nucleotides. All trees were inferred using a maximum likelihood (ML) approach assuming the HKY model plus a discrete Gamma correction and the rate of invariable sites. The FPLV strains isolated in this study are indicated by blue arrows in the tree. Strains KP769859, KX434461 and KX434462 are indicated by green arrows in the trees. Branch support are indicated in a colored scale and were obtained by the approximate likelihood ratio test (aLRT) where one is the highest score. Black diamonds indicate the position of historical FPLV strains, those that were isolated prior or near the spread of CPV in domestic dogs. Some clusters of FPLV or MEV discussed in the manuscript are indicated by numbers. The Genbank identification of all sequences used in the analyses are listed in Material and Methods. Phylogenetic analyses and estimation of genetic distances were conducted in MEGAX software.

3.6. Ancestral reconstruction of amino acids of VP2 in carnivorous parvoviruses

We explored if the conflicting location of LSJ-2014, CSJ-2015 in the maximum likelihood trees was related to some biological property of these sequences or an artifact owing to the small number of sequences included in the previous phylogenetic analysis. For the analysis we used 148 VP2 sequences of FPLV and MEV selected from the Genbank (Ids included in the S1 Table). These sequences were selected basically by the absence of recombination. Recombinant strains need to be removed because recombination is a significant bias to the inferences of trees based on maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches [31]. The presence of positive selection was also measured in the alignments of VP2 in order to contemplate the effect of positive selection on the topology of the trees. The VP2 tree and amino acid reconstruction are shown in Fig 6. This tree indicated that there are clusters formed exclusively by MEV isolates (identified in the tree by blue circles). A different evolutionary scenario was observed in the FPLV isolates: strains detected in raccoon, fox, tiger, lion, wildcat, domestic cat and puma are intermingled in the VP2 tree (indicated by circles and names with different colors). Phylogroups are generally formed by strains of distinct species and different regions. The rectangular gray areas in the tree indicate mutations that occurred in some lineages.

Fig 6 — The tree was inferred using a maximum likelihood (ML) approach assuming the HKY model plus a discrete Gamma correction and the rate of invariable sites. The FPLV strains isolated in the present study are indicated by red arrow in the tree. Branch support are indicated by a color scale and were obtained by the approximate likelihood ratio test (aLRT) where one is the highest score. Some clusters of FPLV or MEV that are discussed in the manuscript are indicated by hashtag symbols. Circles with distinct colors indicate strains isolated in different species according to the color code in the figures in the right portion of the tree. Grey rectangles indicate amino acid changes that occurred in some clusters, numbered rectangles indicate the position in the VP2 protein. The letters indicate the one letter amino acid code as follows: A = Alanine; C = Cysteine; D = Aspartic Acid; E = Glutamic Acid; F = Phenylalanine; G = Glycine; H = Histidine; I = Isoleucine; K = Lysine; L = Leucine; M = Methionine;N = Asparagine; P = Proline; Q = Glutamine; R = Arginine; S = Serine; T = Threonine; V = Valine; W = Tryptophan; Y = Tyrosine. The Genbank identification of all sequences used in the analyses are listed in Material and Methods. Sequences used to infer the VP2 tree were absent from any signal of recombination according to the analysis based on distinct methods as implemented in the RDP v.4 software.

The tree also shows that there are no species-specific FPLV strains. However, there are some clusters formed by regional strains. For instance, clade # 1 of the tree is composed mainly of FPLV strains from domestic cats, one lion and one tiger. These sequences were isolated in Europe (Portugal and Italy). Another example of regional clustering is group #2 composed of strains from domestic cats and also a unique group of MEV strains (indicated by a blue dot). All strains of this group are from China. Most clusters have particular sets of amino acids that make them distinct from other strains. Mutations at cluster #1, #2 and #5 likely are local adaptations because they are composed of regional strains. Cluster #6 is composed of strains from Korea but no peculiar mutations was detected in the ancestral reconstruction.

4. Discussion

Several amino acid residues in the VP2 protein influence the antigenicity and host range of both CPV-2 and FPLV [12,18]. FPLV and CPV showed a completely different pattern of evolution, although they are highly related at the genetic level. FPLV has evolved mainly by random genetic drift and multiple strains likely use feral cats and other carnivores as reservoirs [12,14,15,17–19,21,26,38]. However, CPV evolution, which leads to the emergence of new antigenic variants (2a and 2b) and expansion of the host range, was partly driven by positive selection [17–19,27,28]. FPLV has not experienced major changes in antigenic and biological properties since its first identification in 1920 [19]. The major antigenic site of parvoviruses is on the VP2 protein, and mutations in the VP2 protein at resides 80(K), 93(K), 103(V), 323(D), 564(N) and 568(A) will affect the antigenic characteristics and host range [3,12,13,15,17,29].

Our phylogenetic analysis of near-full length genomes of FPLV showed that historical strains (those isolated in the 1970s and 1980s) usually are not located at the base of the phylogroups. In addition, historical strains are evenly mixed with recently isolated strains. This lack of temporal structure of the PFV suggests the absence of key strains that could provide more information regarding the spread of this virus in carnivorous species. The maximum likelihood trees also showed many events of cross-infections between FPLV and MEV. Additionally, the phylogenetic analysis and the ancestral reconstruction showed that FPLV is able to infect distinct carnivores with little changes in the Vp2 gene. The evolutionary history of CPV comprises highly host-adapted strains [2,21,27]. FPLV, on the other hand, seems to be less specialized. Particularly, FPLV lineages infecting domestic cats and wild cats are nearly identical. It is interesting to mention that certain FPLV strain which are less pathogenic in domestic cats can be lethal to big felids such as tigers and lions [32,39,40].

In summary, our analysis indicated that some FPLV and MEV lineages likely evolve in local populations merely by changes in nucleotide composition instead of protein mutations. Interestingly, our FPLV isolates (LSJ-2014 and CSJ-2015) and MERV from China diverged from lineages containing strains used in some vaccines. Thus it is quite reasonable to suggest they may have emerged as evasion strains due to selective pressures of immune surveillance. This feature is in concert with a previous report indicating that FPLV may evolve primarily by genetic drift. The near-complete genome of FPLV strain in this study is of great potential value to further exploring antigenic variation and development of a genetically engineered vaccine.

Supporting information

S1 Raw Images

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(4.5MB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Identification of FLPV sequences used in the phylogenetic analyses.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(20.8KB, pdf)}

Data Availability

FPV sequences were deposited in the Genbank Strain LSJ-2014 was deposited in Genbank with the number: MH165481) and CSJ-2015 MH165482.

Funding Statement

We thank the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (ASTIP-IAS15), the National Key Research and Development Program of China and Pró-reitoria de pesquisa e pós-graduação da UFPA (Progep #02/2019).

References

1.Cotmore S.F.; Agbandje-McKenna M.; Chiorini J.A.; Mukha D.V.; Pintel D.J.; Qiu J; et al. The family parvoviridae. Arch Virol 2014, 159, 1239–1247. 10.1007/s00705-013-1914-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Decaro N.; Camero M.; Greco G.; Zizzo N.; Tinelli A.; Campolo M.; et al. Canine distemper and related diseases: Report of a severe outbreak in a kennel. New Microbiol 2004, 27, 177–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Demeter Z.; Gal J.; Palade E.A.; Rusvai M. Feline parvovirus infection in an asian palm civet (paradoxurus hermaphroditus). Vet Rec 2009, 164, 213–216. 10.1136/vr.164.7.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Guo L.; Yang S.L.; Chen S.J.; Zhang Z.; Wang C.; Hou R.; et al. Identification of canine parvovirus with the q370r point mutation in the vp2 gene from a giant panda (ailuropoda melanoleuca). Virol J 2013, 10, 163 10.1186/1743-422X-10-163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Kariatsumari T.; Horiuchi M.; Hama E.; Yaguchi K.; Ishigurio N.; Goto H.; et al. Construction and nucleotide sequence analysis of an infectious DNA clone of the autonomous parvovirus, mink enteritis virus. J Gen Virol 1991, 72 (Pt 4), 867–875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Uttenthal A.; Larsen S.; Lund E.; Bloom M.E.; Storgard T.; Alexandersen S. Analysis of experimental mink enteritis virus infection in mink: In situ hybridization, serology, and histopathology. J Virol 1990, 64, 2768–2779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Yang S.; Wang S.; Feng H.; Zeng L.; Xia Z.; Zhang R.; et al. Isolation and characterization of feline panleukopenia virus from a diarrheic monkey. Vet Microbiol 2010, 143, 155–159. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.11.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Yuan D.; Wang J.; Li Z.; Mao Y.; Sun J.Z.; Xi J.; et al. Establishment of a rescue system for an autonomous parvovirus mink enteritis virus. Virus Res 2014, 183, 1–5. 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Zhang R.; Yang S.; Zhang W.; Zhang T.; Xie Z.; Feng H.; et al. Phylogenetic analysis of the vp2 gene of canine parvoviruses circulating in china. Virus Genes 2010, 40, 397–402. 10.1007/s11262-010-0466-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Zhou L.; Tang Q.; Shi L.; Kong M.; Liang L.; Mao Q.; et al. Full-length genomic characterization and molecular evolution of canine parvovirus in china. Virus Genes 2016, 52, 411–416. 10.1007/s11262-016-1309-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Christensen J.; Tattersall P. Parvovirus initiator protein ns1 and rpa coordinate replication fork progression in a reconstituted DNA replication system. J Virol 2002, 76, 6518–6531. 10.1128/JVI.76.13.6518-6531.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Allison A.B.; Kohler D.J.; Fox K.A.; Brown J.D.; Gerhold R.W.; Shearn-Bochsler V.I.; et al. Frequent cross-species transmission of parvoviruses among diverse carnivore hosts. J Virol 2013, 87, 2342–2347. 10.1128/JVI.02428-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Allison A.B.; Kohler D.J.; Ortega A.; Hoover E.A.; Grove D.M.; Holmes E.C.; et al. Host-specific parvovirus evolution in nature is recapitulated by in vitro adaptation to different carnivore species. PLoS Pathog 2014, 10, e1004475 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Canuti M.; Britton A.P.; Graham S.M.; Lang A.S. Epidemiology and molecular characterization of protoparvoviruses infecting wild raccoons (procyon lotor) in british columbia, canada. Virus Res 2017, 242, 85–89. 10.1016/j.virusres.2017.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Horiuchi M.; Yamaguchi Y.; Gojobori T.; Mochizuki M.; Nagasawa H.; Toyoda Y.; et al. Differences in the evolutionary pattern of feline panleukopenia virus and canine parvovirus. Virology 1998, 249, 440–452. 10.1006/viro.1998.9335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Steinel A.; Munson L.; van Vuuren M.; Truyen U. Genetic characterization of feline parvovirus sequences from various carnivores. J Gen Virol 2000, 81, 345–350. 10.1099/0022-1317-81-2-345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Stucker K.M.; Pagan I.; Cifuente J.O.; Kaelber J.T.; Lillie T.D.; Hafenstein S.; et al. The role of evolutionary intermediates in the host adaptation of canine parvovirus. J Virol 2012, 86, 1514–1521. 10.1128/JVI.06222-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Truyen U.; Gruenberg A.; Chang S.F.; Obermaier B.; Veijalainen P.; Parrish C.R. Evolution of the feline-subgroup parvoviruses and the control of canine host range in vivo. J Virol 1995, 69, 4702–4710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Truyen U.; Parrish C.R. Feline panleukopenia virus: Its interesting evolution and current problems in immunoprophylaxis against a serious pathogen. Vet Microbiol 2013, 165, 29–32. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Miranda C.; Thompson G. Canine parvovirus: The worldwide occurrence of antigenic variants. J Gen Virol 2016, 97, 2043–2057. 10.1099/jgv.0.000540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Parrish C.R. Host range relationships and the evolution of canine parvovirus. Vet Microbiol 1999, 69, 29–40. 10.1016/s0378-1135(99)00084-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Steinel A.; Parrish C.R.; Bloom M.E.; Truyen U. Parvovirus infections in wild carnivores. J Wildl Dis 2001, 37, 594–607. 10.7589/0090-3558-37.3.594 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Battilani M.; Scagliarini A.; Ciulli S.; Morganti L.; Prosperi S. High genetic diversity of the vp2 gene of a canine parvovirus strain detected in a domestic cat. Virology 2006, 352, 22–26. 10.1016/j.virol.2006.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Govindasamy L.; Hueffer K.; Parrish C.R.; Agbandje-McKenna M. Structures of host range-controlling regions of the capsids of canine and feline parvoviruses and mutants. J Virol 2003, 77, 12211–12221. 10.1128/JVI.77.22.12211-12221.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Parrish C.R.; Aquadro C.F.; Strassheim M.L.; Evermann J.F.; Sgro J.Y.; Mohammed H.O. Rapid antigenic-type replacement and DNA sequence evolution of canine parvovirus. J Virol 1991, 65, 6544–6552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Hoelzer K.; Parrish C.R. The emergence of parvoviruses of carnivores. Vet Res 2010, 41, 39 10.1051/vetres/2010011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Pereira C.A.; Leal E.S.; Durigon E.L. Selective regimen shift and demographic growth increase associated with the emergence of high-fitness variants of canine parvovirus. Infect Genet Evol 2007, 7, 399–409. 10.1016/j.meegid.2006.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Shackelton L.A.; Parrish C.R.; Truyen U.; Holmes E.C. High rate of viral evolution associated with the emergence of carnivore parvovirus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102, 379–384. 10.1073/pnas.0406765102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Horiuchi M.; Ishiguro N.; Goto H.; Shinagawa M. Characterization of the stage(s) in the virus replication cycle at which the host-cell specificity of the feline parvovirus subgroup is regulated in canine cells. Virology 1992, 189, 600–608. 10.1016/0042-6822(92)90583-b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Leal E.; Villanova F.E.; Lin W.; Hu F.; Liu Q.; Liu Y.; et al. Interclade recombination in porcine parvovirus strains. J Gen Virol 2012, 93, 2692–2704. 10.1099/vir.0.045765-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Villanova F.; Cui S.; Ai X.; Leal E. Analysis of full-length genomes of porcine teschovirus (ptv) and the effect of purifying selection on phylogenetic trees. Arch Virol 2016, 161, 1199–1208. 10.1007/s00705-015-2744-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Wang X.; Li T.; Liu H.; Du J.; Zhou F.; Dong Y.; et al. Recombinant feline parvovirus infection of immunized tigers in central china. Emerg Microbes Infect 2017, 6, e42 10.1038/emi.2017.25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Decaro N.; Desario C.; Miccolupo A.; Campolo M.; Parisi A.; Martella V.; et al. Genetic analysis of feline panleukopenia viruses from cats with gastroenteritis. J Gen Virol 2008, 89, 2290–2298. 10.1099/vir.0.2008/001503-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Larkin M.A.; Blackshields G.; Brown N.P.; Chenna R.; McGettigan P.A.; McWilliam H.; et al. Clustal w and clustal x version 2.0. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2947–2948. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Kumar S.; Stecher G.; Li M.; Knyaz C.; Tamura K. Mega x: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 2018, 35, 1547–1549. 10.1093/molbev/msy096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Martin D.P.; Murrell B.; Golden M.; Khoosal A.; Muhire B. Rdp4: Detection and analysis of recombination patterns in virus genomes. Virus Evol 2015, 1, vev003 10.1093/ve/vev003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Whelan S.; Goldman N. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol 2001, 18, 691–699. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Liu C.; Liu Y.; Liu D.; Qiu Z.; Tian J.; Guo D.; et al. Complete genome sequence of feline panleukopenia virus strain hrb-cs1, isolated from a domestic cat in northeastern china. Genome Announc 2015, 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Duarte M.D.; Barros S.C.; Henriques M.; Fernandes T.L.; Bernardino R.; Monteiro M.; et al. Fatal infection with feline panleukopenia virus in two captive wild carnivores (panthera tigris and panthera leo). J Zoo Wildl Med 2009, 40, 354–359. 10.1638/2008-0015.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Risi E.; Agoulon A.; Allaire F.; Le Drean-Quenec'hdu S.; Martin V.; Mahl P. Antibody response to vaccines for rhinotracheitis, caliciviral disease, panleukopenia, feline leukemia, and rabies in tigers (panthera tigris) and lions (panthera leo). J Zoo Wildl Med 2012, 43, 248–255. 10.1638/2010-0166.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227705.r001

Decision Letter 0

Jianming Qiu

12 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-23818

Regional adaptations and parallel mutations in Feline panleukopenia virus strains from China revealed by nearly-full length genome analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leal,

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. In particular, please provide background information of the prototype virus strain for comparison and any information regarding the immune status of the animals from which virus strains were isolated.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianming Qiu, Ph.D.

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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that Figure(s) in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: N/A

**********

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: In the present study, Leal and colleagues isolated two Feline panleukopenia viruses from domestic cats. They performed the phylogenetic analysis of the viral genome and evolutionary analysis of the VP2 gene. They found the isolated stains are close to historical strains of FPLV/MEV and the VP2 gene is characterized by local adaptation. This study supplies more information about the genomics and evolutionary information of FPLV.

Major comments to the authors.

1. The authors compared the isolated two FPLV strains with historical strains. But few information was introduced about these historical strains. More background information about historical strains should be included.

2. In the Ancestral reconstruction section, P13, line 271-308, the authors claimed “the conflicting location of LSJ-2014, CSJ-2015 in the maximum likelihood trees”, please explain more about this conflicting location of LSJ-2014, CSJ-2015 in the maximum likelihood trees. VP1 only contains 59 more amino acids (177nt) than VP2. Why the phylogenetic tree of VP1 and VP2 is so different (conflicting)? the authors showed some mutations in the roots of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 in figure 6, does that mean all viruses in this branch contain the same mutations?

3. The authors claimed that the isolated FPLV may emerged as evasion strains due to selective pressures of immune surveillance. Do you have any information about the immune situation of the cats which the two FPLV isolated from?

Minor comments to the authors.

1. P8, line 47, when you introduce amino acids, it is better use VP2 protein but not Vp2 gene.

2. P8, line 49-50, typos, “presente”, “posiions”

3. P9, line 92, not sure why include (Table S1) here.

4. P9, line 112-115, the buffer is PBST but not PBS? What is the primary and secondary antibodies used for IFA? What fluorescent dye was conjugated in the second antibody? Typo, “aded” in line 113. “wells” in line 114 is better use “cells”.

5. P10, line 128-137, the primers used for amplifying the viral genome should be included. It is not rigorous to claim “entire viral genome” in line 137.

6. P11, line 179, Lane 2 is for positive control, lane 3 is for positive sample and lane 4 is negative control.

7. P11, line 197 and figure 3, figure 3A is showing cells infected by virus, and figure 3B is negative control. DAPI staining should be included in the image.

8. P12, line 207-210, it is not rigorous to call NS1, VP1, and VP2 polyprotein.

9. P12, line 215-218, some amino acids were not included in Table 1. Why B is representing Aspartic acid? Y which showed in the table is not included.

10. P12, line 227 and figure 4, why BJ-04 and BJ-05 were used for isolated viruses? Please consistent in the manuscript.

11. P12, line 228, a red arrow was used in the figure.

12. P13, line 255-256, KP769859, KX434461, and KX434462 were not indicated by arrows.

13. P13, line 264-265, no values showed in the figure.

14. P14, line 285, vaccine strains did not show in the figure.

15. P14-15, line 283-301, the authors claim that “Phylogroups are generally formed by strains of distinct species” which is conflict with the statement of “The tree also shows that there are no species-specific FPLV strains”. Please double check. Line 290-291, no values showed in the figure.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled, “Regional adaptations and parallel mutations in Feline panleukopenia virus strains from China revealed by nearly-full length genome analysis” by Leal E. et al. identified two FPLV strains in domestic cats from Hubei, china. The authors show that the two strains are closely related to FPLV/CPV isolates from 1960’s. They also demonstrate that the two strains have diverged in Vp gene sequence and therefore possibly evade anti-FPLV immune reponse by the current vaccine strains.

The authors need to address the following concerns to further substantiate their claims and make the required changes before the manuscript be considered suitable for publication in Plos One.

1. It is mentioned in the materials and methods for Immunofluorescence assay that the cells were DAPI stained for 15 mins. However, in Fig. 3, there are no DAPI stained images at all. The authors better show the bright field images of the cells infected/uninfected or cells be stained with DAPI. Also, are these images taken at 200X, as mentioned in Line 199?

2. It is quite difficult to read the text lines in Fig. 4. Authors must change these text lines to make it legible.

3. There are several grammatical mistakes, typos and other inconsistencies in the text. The authors need to pay attention to these mistakes and make the necessary changes. I have mentioned many of them here:

Line 40… “Ns2” here is a protein, not a gene and should be written as “NS2”.

Line 49,50… “presente at posiions” should be as “present at positions”.

Line 53… “increasing” should be “increasingly”.

Line 66… Genome-wide “analyze” as Genome-wide “analysis”.

Line 194… “exhibites”, should be “exhibits”

Line 225… “Seem” should be “seen”.

Line 293… should be “according”.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 16;15(1):e0227705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227705.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

20 Dec 2019

COMMENTS:

Major comments to the authors.

Resp: Historical samples are those isolated in cats prior the spread of the FPLV to the dogs which occurred before 1980s (molecular clock estimates that the host transmission occurred between 1970-1978). After 1980 the virus adapted to dogs and was named CPV-2 and soon a new variant (named CPV-2a) replaced CPV-2. In the original manuscript a brief discussion about these strains was included (Lines 316-320) we also included some explanation in the lines 22-224.

Resp: Since phylogenetic trees can rotate vertically and this has no meaning to the topology then Vp1, Vp2 and Ns2 trees are not distinct in their topology because clade #1, #2 and #3 are present in all trees. Please note that in in all trees clades #2 and #3 are related (they share a common ancestor node). Also note that strains LSJ-2014 and CSL-2015 are closely related with the clade #3 in the Ns1 and Vp1 tree while in the Vp2 tree these strains are closely related with the clade #2.

Why the phylogenetic tree of VP1 and VP2 is so different (conflicting)? the authors showed some mutations in the roots of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 in figure 6, does that mean all viruses in this branch contain the same mutations?

Resp: No necessarily all strains in the leafs of a tree share the same residue that was inferred in a certain node because the ancestral reconstruction relies on phylogenies and it is based on a codon model that follows an evolutionary approach. So the probability of a residue in a hypothetical ancestral protein depends not only on the frequency of all amino acids in the alignment, it also depends on the likelihood of having that residue at a certain internal node of the inferred tree.

Resp: Besides depression, fever, intense haemorrhagic vomiting, diarrhea, and severe leukopenia no other information was available

Minor comments to the authors.

1. P8, line 47, when you introduce amino acids, it is better use VP2 protein but not Vp2 gene.

Resp: we did change in the manuscript

2. P8, line 49-50, typos, “presente”, “posiions”

Resp: we did change in the manuscript

3. P9, line 92, not sure why include (Table S1) here.

Resp: “Table S1” was removed from this part of the text

4. P9, line 112-115, the buffer is PBST but not PBS? What is the primary and secondary antibodies used for IFA? What fluorescent dye was conjugated in the second antibody?

Resp: PBST is PBS plus Tween used as standard washing buffers.

In immunolabeling assays primary antibodies bind directly to the antigens and secondary antobodies bind to the Fc domains of primary antibodies. The Fc domain is constant within the same animal class. The Fc domain of secondary antibodies are labeled (usually with FITC) only one type of secondary antibody is required to bind to many types of primary antibodies, this reduces the cost by labeling.

Typo, “aded” in line 113. “wells” in line 114 is better use “cells”.

Resp: This was changed in the manuscript.

5. P10, line 128-137, the primers used for amplifying the viral genome should be included. It is not rigorous to claim

Resp: Primers were included in the section 2.2.”Sample treatment and confirmation of FPLV”

“entire viral genome” in line 137.

Resp: we change this to nearly entire genome

6. P11, line 179, Lane 2 is for positive control, lane 3 is for positive sample and lane 4 is negative control.

Resp: This was corrected in the new version of the manuscript

7. P11, line 197 and figure 3, figure 3A is showing cells infected by virus, and figure 3B is negative control. DAPI staining should be included in the image.

Resp: In the new figure 3 DAPI staining of nucleus was included

8. P12, line 207-210, it is not rigorous to call NS1, VP1, and VP2 polyprotein.

Resp: This also was corrected in the new version of the manuscript

9. P12, line 215-218, some amino acids were not included in Table 1. Why B is representing Aspartic acid? Y which showed in the table is not included.

Resp: this was a mistake, Amino acid UIPAC codes were corrected in the new manuscript.

10. P12, line 227 and figure 4, why BJ-04 and BJ-05 were used for isolated viruses? Please consistent in the manuscript.

Resp: We changed these names in the text of the manuscript and also in the figure4.

11. P12, line 228, a red arrow was used in the figure.

Resp: this was corrected in the new manuscript.

12. P13, line 255-256, KP769859, KX434461, and KX434462 were not indicated by arrows.

Resp: They are indicted by green arrows in the new version of the figure 5.

13. P13, line 264-265, no values showed in the figure.

Resp: We have changed this in the text to indicate that branch support are indicated by a color scale in the trees.

14. P14, line 285, vaccine strains did not show in the figure.

Resp: this was removed from the new version of the manuscript.

Resp: It is true that a same FLPV strain can infect distinct hots (for example; raccoons and cats). By this reason phylogenetic clades are composed by strains from different species. The exception is MRV that circulate in minks kept in close contacts in farms.

Please double check. Line 290-291, no values showed in the figure.

Resp: We changed this in the new manuscript.

The authors need to address the following concerns to further substantiate their claims and make the

required changes before the manuscript be considered suitable for publication in Plos One.

Resp: Out fault, we did include the image of DAPI staining in the figure 3 and also changed the magnification to 200 μm in the new manuscript.

2. It is quite difficult to read the text lines in Fig. 4. Authors must change these text lines to make it legible.

Resp: Figure 4 was modified and the quality and font size were changed.

Line 40… “Ns2” here is a protein, not a gene and should be written as “NS2”.