Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluating the Negative‐Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluating the Negative‐Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluating the Negative‐Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluating the Negative‐Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus
2025
Overview
Recent studies proposed that the negative strands of some single‐stranded, positive‐sense RNA viruses contain reverse open reading frames (rORFs) that encode functional peptides. Highly conserved rORFs were found in the negative strand of viruses within the Potyviridae family, including turnip mosaic virus (TuMV), where rORF2 was shown to be essential for infection and survival. In this study, we analysed the existence and potential functionality of rORFs in plum pox virus (PPV) using mass spectrometry and mutagenesis. Unbiased mass spectrometry analyses failed to identify any rORF‐encoded peptides and PPV mutants abolishing the expression of individual rORF‐derived peptides showed no significant difference in infection rates compared to the wild‐type virus in the experimental host Nicotiana benthamiana or in the natural host Prunus persica. Furthermore, competitive infection experiments revealed that neither the wild type nor the rORF2 knockout mutant, which had proven lethal when tested in TuMV, exhibited any competitive advantage over the other. Taken together, these findings suggest that rORFs in PPV are either not produced or are functionally irrelevant for infection, and they highlight the need to evaluate the role of rORFs in other potyviruses on a case‐by‐case basis. Plum pox virus produces two polyproteins from ORFs in the positive strand. This study explores the possible expression of peptides from negative‐strand ORFs (rORFs).
