Phaeovirus

by Janie

"Self" ver­sus "other" de­lin­eations in bi­ol­ogy are fas­ci­nat­ing, from both a bi­o­log­i­cal and con­cep­tual stand­point. The ex­am­ple that prob­a­bly leaps first into people's minds is the hu­man mi­cro­biome: the more that is dis­cov­ered about im­por­tant mi­crobes liv­ing on and in us, the more the con­cepts of "me"/"my"/"mine" (e.g., my body, my genome, my be­hav­ior) be­come hazier (a sort of meta­phys­i­cal Dun­ning-Kruger ef­fect?).

Is phys­i­cal prox­im­ity enough to des­ig­nate a mi­crobe as part of its host's "self"? Must that as­so­ci­a­tion be over long pe­ri­ods of time? Or must it be ge­netic in­cor­po­ra­tion? Does a mi­crobe only count as part of the "self" if it has some ac­tive in­flu­ence on the host's life cy­cle? Is merely hang­ing out around the host enough?

The more I've learned about viruses the past hand­ful of months, the more they've be­come in­ter­est­ing in this re­spect. They of­ten stick close to their hosts, ei­ther ge­net­i­cally or phys­i­cally, thereby en­abling car­ry­over across the lifes­pans of gen­er­a­tions of hosts. Some are em­bed­ded within the hu­man genome. Of these, some are harm­less, de­fanged by the pas­sage of time, like the en­doge­nous retro­viruses that com­prise 1–8% of the hu­man genome or the ri­bozymes re­lated to the He­pati­tis D virus. Oth­ers are more in­sid­i­ous, like her­pesviruses that in­sert them­selves into hu­man telom­eres. Bac­te­rio­phages reg­u­late the bac­te­r­ial in­hab­i­tants of our guts; some have, in fact, evolved hy­per­vari­able tail fibers that al­low them to stick to mucins, the gly­co­pro­teins within the mu­cus that enswathes the GI tract.

Fig. 1. TEM of virion in host cell. Scale bar is 100 nm. Source. Fron­tispiece: Ec­to­car­pus silicu­lo­sus, the brown alga host. Source

Here's an­other strat­egy: in­fect ga­metes. Phaeoviruses do ex­actly that. These gi­ant ma­rine viruses en­sure their prop­a­ga­tion by se­lec­tively in­fect­ing the ga­metes of ma­rine brown al­gae. One of the bet­ter stud­ied ex­am­ples is Ec­to­car­pus silicu­lo­sus virus‑1, which is able to in­fect both the zoospores re­quired for asex­ual re­pro­duc­tion and the ga­metes re­quired for sex­ual re­pro­duc­tion, but is only able to mul­ti­ply in the al­gal re­pro­duc­tive or­gans. Once the vi­ral DNA in­te­grates into the genome, it will be prop­a­gated ver­ti­cally through­out sub­se­quent al­gal lin­eages. Clever.

Gi­ant viruses in­clud­ing phaeovirus seem to share a par­tic­u­lar pen­chant for in­fect­ing aquatic pro­tists, whether that is brown al­gae or amoe­bas or phy­to­plank­ton. The first mimivirus, for ex­am­ple, was dis­cov­ered in an amoeba grow­ing in the wa­ter of a cool­ing tower in Eng­land, megavirus was found in a sea­wa­ter sam­ple in Chile, and the first pan­do­raviruses were iso­lated from Chilean sea­wa­ter (again) and from an Aus­tralian pond. They are all hefty lit­tle things. The icosa­he­dral phaeovirus cap­sid is about 150 nm in di­am­e­ter and en­closes a cir­cu­lar 335 kb ds­DNA genome. Com­pare this to mimivirus with its 1.18 Mb genome in a 400 nm di­am­e­ter cap­sid, megavirus with its 1.26 Mb genome in a 440 nm di­am­e­ter cap­sid, or the gi­ant pan­do­ravirus with its 2.5 Mb genome in a 1000 nm di­am­e­ter cap­sid. They are a dime a dozen in the open sea. If a mil­li­liter of sea­wa­ter has some­where in the vicin­ity of ten mil­lion vi­ral par­ti­cles, 104 — 106 of those are gi­ant viruses, sec­ond only in abun­dance to bac­te­rio­phages. What is it about the ma­rine en­vi­ron­ment that is so amenable for gi­ant viruses? Is there more to it than the sim­ple phys­i­cal re­al­ity of such large par­ti­cles be­ing un­likely to be dis­persed through air? Does that sound like a Tal­mu­dic Ques­tion?

 

Do you want to com­ment on this post? We would be happy about it! Please com­ment on Mastodon or Bluesky.
 

Other Posts