Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The 5898 nucleotide single-strand RNA genome of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) contains one long open reading frame, which is translated into a 120.6 kDa polyprotein. The sequences of SCYLV isolates from the two SCYLV-susceptible cultivars from Hawaii had a deletion of 48-51 nt in ORF1. SCYLV from 12 sugarcane hybrid cultivars from different origins were tested by RT-PCR using a specific set of primers, to investigate the genome segment for this deletion. Only three cultivars were found not to have the deletion (H87-4319, JA-605 and CP52-43), while SCYLV from nine cultivars (H73-6110, H87-4094, H78-7750, GT54-9, G84-47, H78-4153, H65-7052, C1051-73, Ph-8013) along with aphid (Melanaphis sacchari), which fed on SCYLV-infected H73-6110, contained a deletion of about 50 nt. The deleted sequence was located in the overlap frameshift of ORF1 and ORF2. Thus, ORFs 1 and 2 of SCYLV are translated via ribosomal frameshift and yield the 120.6 kDa viral replicase. ORF1 plays most likely a role in the replication and is a source of large variability among the virus population. To identify possible recombination events located in the RdRp domain of the Hawaiian isolates, two programs were used: RDP v.4.3 and RECCO. It is noteworthy that according both methods Haw73-6110 was found as a potential recombinant. On the other hand, opposed to the RDP package, RECCO revealed that Haw87-4094 isolate was also a recombinant whereas Haw87-4319 was not.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2012.04.007 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!