Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Virology, March 1999, p. 2420-2424, Vol. 73, No. 3
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Hybrid Frequencies Confirm Limit to Coinfection
in the RNA Bacteriophage
6
Paul E.
Turner,*
Christina L.
Burch,
Kathryn A.
Hanley, and
Lin
Chao
Department of Biology, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
Received 26 August 1998/Accepted 24 November 1998
 |
ABSTRACT |
Coinfection of the same host cell by multiple viruses may lead to
increased competition for limited cellular resources, thus reducing the
fitness of an individual virus. Selection should favor viruses that can
limit or prevent coinfection, and it is not surprising that many
viruses have evolved mechanisms to do so. Here we explore whether
coinfection is limited in the RNA bacteriophage
6 that infects
Pseudomonas phaseolicola. We estimated the limit to
coinfection in
6 by comparing the frequency of hybrids produced by
two marked phage strains to that predicted by a mathematical model
based on differing limits to coinfection. Our results provide an
alternative method for estimating the limit to coinfection and confirm
a previous estimate between two to three phages per host cell. In
addition, our data reveal that the rate of coinfection at low phage
densities may exceed that expected through random Poisson sampling. We
discuss whether phage
6 has evolved an optimal limit that balances
the costly and beneficial fitness effects associated with multiple infections.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
When multiple virus genotypes
coinfect the same host cell, an individual virus may experience
decreased fitness due to heightened intracellular competition (3,
11, 25). A consequence of such competition is the evolution
of defective interfering (DI) particles. DI particles are effectively
viral genomes that become deleted for protein coding regions but retain
and duplicate the target sequences recognized by the replication and
encapsidation machinery (9, 10). By virtue of their smaller
size and multiple targets, DI particles gain an intracellular
replicative and competitive advantage over ordinary viruses during
coinfection. Although DI particles generally evolve during very high
multiplicities of infection (the ratio of phage to host cells in a
given mixture), recent work has shown that even moderate coinfection
can be costly to a virus (23). Here evolution does not lead
to DI particles but to intact viruses with adaptations that enhance
their intracellular fitness at the expense of their ability to exploit
the host. Thus, viruses that can limit or prevent coinfection
should possess a selective advantage, and it is not surprising that
numerous viruses have evolved mechanisms to do so (19, 20,
26).
In this study, we tested whether and to what number of viruses
coinfection is limited in bacteriophage
6. When multiple
6 parent
phages coinfect the same host cell, hybrid progeny are generated that
possess genetic markers from more than one parent (13).
Because coinfection is necessary for the creation of hybrids, we noted
that the limit to coinfection (the maximum number of viruses that enter
a single host cell) can be estimated from the frequency of hybrids
observed at different multiplicities of infection. For any given limit,
increasing the multiplicity of infection above the limit should have a
diminishing effect on hybrid production. Our estimate is derived by
comparing observed frequencies of hybrids to a series of theoretical
distributions based on differing limits to coinfection.
Although a limit was established previously by Olkkonen and Bamford
(16), who used the amount of incorporated 14C
label as a measure of the number of phage entering a cell, we have
reestimated the limit through development and application of a genetic
approach. Aside from providing a test of the previous estimate, our
motivation was to develop a simpler method that could be easily adapted
to a variety of viruses and culture conditions. More-readily-obtained
estimates of the limit to coinfection have recently become important
because many theoretical models and studies of viral evolution require
knowledge of the rate of coinfection (2, 4, 5, 13, 17, 23).
Intracellular competition clearly creates a cost to coinfection, but it
has been argued that coinfection is advantageous because the
replication of more than one virus within a cell allows for sexual
reproduction (3). Thus, a testable expectation is that
viruses may benefit by evolving a limit, but the limit should not be as
low as one virus per cell.
Experimental design.
Because the genome of
6 is comprised
of three double-stranded RNA segments denoted small, medium, and large
(8, 12, 14, 18), and recombination in
6 is lacking or
occurs at an extremely low rate (13), the generation of
hybrid progeny during coinfection is strictly through segment
reassortment. To monitor the frequency of hybrids produced, we crossed
two
6 strains, MX and LX, which were genetically marked on the
middle and large segments, respectively. Letting X denote the marked
segment and + denote the unmarked or wild-type segment, the
genotypes of MX and LX are therefore (+ X +) and (++ X).
To estimate the limit of coinfection, crosses were made at various
multiplicities of infection. As the multiplicity of infection is
increased, it is expected that the frequency of hybrids increases to a
maximum that is determined by the limit of coinfection. In a cross
between MX and LX, six possible hybrid genotypes can be produced.
However only the wild-type reassortant (+++) was monitored, because it
is the only genotype that is distinguishable from the parental
genotypes (see below). In theory, if phage fitnesses are equal (but see
below) a maximum frequency of (+++) progeny will be reached when
individual cells are infected with an equal number of MX and LX phage
[frequency (MX) = frequency (LX) = 0.5]. In this case, the
probability that progeny will acquire both wild-type segments is
obtained simply by multiplying the frequencies of the two segments as
follows: 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25. Only if the limit to coinfection
is infinitely large (i.e., no limit) will the ratio of MX to LX within
a given cell approach 1:1. As the limit is reduced, this ratio will
deviate from 1:1 within most cells. Thus, as the limit to coinfection
decreases, so will the maximum frequency of (+++) progeny. If the limit
is one, no hybrids are formed regardless of the multiplicity of
infection. To determine an estimate of the limit, our experimentally
derived frequencies of (+++) hybrids were then compared to expected
frequencies based on a theoretical model.
The model. (i) Expected frequency of hybrids.
To generate the
expected values, we created a model that predicts the frequency of
(+++) hybrids over a range of multiplicities of infection in crosses
between MX and LX phages. Five assumptions are implicit in the model:
(i) phages attach randomly and irreversibly to cells; (ii) phages enter
and infect a cell up to the designated limit to coinfection; (iii) in a
host cell infected by either MX or LX phages alone, the number of
progeny phage produced depends on the replicative ability of each
parental phage and is independent of the number of infecting parental
phage; (iv) in a host cell infected by both MX and LX, the wild-type
markers are dominant and the number of progeny produced is equal to
that of a cell infected by only a wild-type (+++) phage (7);
and (v) hybrids are created by random reassortment of segments.
Assuming first that there is no limit to coinfection, let the frequency
of host cells infected with
n phage be Poisson distributed
(
21) and represented as
|
(1)
|
where
m is the multiplicity of infection. Among the
subset of host cells infected with
n phage, let the
frequency of cells
with
i MX phage and
j LX phage
be binomially distributed and denoted
|
(2)
|
where
i +
j =
n, and
q is the
frequency of MX at the start of the cross. This model corresponds
exactly to independent Poisson
infection by MX and LX, where the
Poisson parameter (
m in the
above model) for each
phage may
differ.
Assuming also that no intracellular replicative differences exist
between the marked X and the wild-type segments, the following
ensues
within a cell with
i +
j =
n phage. The
frequencies of
marked medium and large segments following replication
in the
infected cell are, respectively,
|
(3)
|
|
(3a)
|
The frequency of medium and large + segments in the same cell
is then 1
gM (
n,
i) and 1
gL(
n,
i), and the frequency of
(+++) hybrid progeny
produced by a cell infected with
i +
j =
n phage
(for
i 
1,
j 
1) is
|
(4)
|
The total (+++) hybrid progeny produced by cells infected with
n 
2 phage is then
|
(5)
|
and assuming further that cells infected with only MX or only LX
phage produce the same number of progeny, the total phage
progeny
produced by all infected cells (
n 
1) is
|
(6)
|
Thus, the final frequency of (+++) hybrids when there is no limit
to coinfection and no fitness differences among the phage
is
|
(7)
|
To incorporate a limit to coinfection, it is necessary to adjust
the summations in equation 5. Let
N be a constant
representing
the limit to the number of phage that can enter and infect
a cell.
Summations involving values of
n <
N are not
affected, but those
requiring
n
N are affected because
n cannot increase above
N.
Thus, equation 5 changes to
|
(8)
|
Equation
6 is not changed by a limit to coinfection, but it is now
more correctly written as
|
(9)
|
which is presented because the format of equation 9 is more easily
interpreted when fitness differences are
added.
To incorporate any fitness differences, the effects of both progeny
number per infected cell (burst size) and intracellular
replication
must be considered. Dealing first with intracellular
fitness, let the
replicative abilities of the marked segments
in MX and LX be
dM and
dL and that of
their respective + segments
be 1
dM and 1
dL. Thus, the
frequency of progeny carrying
the marked middle segment and that
carrying the marked large segment
in a cell infected with
i +
j =
n phage are modified from equations
3 and 3a to become,
respectively,
|
(10)
|
|
(10a)
|
From equations 4, 10, and 10a, the frequency of (+++) hybrid
progeny produced by a cell infected with
i +
j =
n
phage (for
i 
1,
j 
1) when intracellular
fitness differs, becomes
|
(11)
|
To deal with any differences in progeny number, simply let
WM and
WL be the progeny
number produced by a cell infected with
either only MX or only LX
phage, respectively, where the progeny
number by a cell infected with
only + phage is standardized to
have a value of
W+ = 1.
Combining
W+ and equations 8 and 11, the total
number of (+++) hybrids is then expected to be
|
(12)
|
where
W+ is number of progeny produced by a
cell infected by
i +
j =
n phage for
i 
1,
j 
1 (at least one MX and one
LX phage) because of
assumption iv
above.
To translate equation 12 into a frequency value, it must be divided by
the total number of progeny phage, but equation 9 must
be modified
before it can be used. Adding the fitness values
WM,
WL, and
W+ changes equation 9 because there are progeny that
are produced by cells infected with
either only MX or only LX
phage. Thus, equation 9 can be decomposed
into two sets of terms.
The first is progeny produced by pure
infections or
|
(13)
|
The second is progeny produced by mixed infections or
|
(14)
|
With these changes, the frequency of (+++) hybrids under a limit
to coinfection and fitness differences is finally derived
to be
|
(15)
|
(ii) Parameter estimation.
Using equation 15 to measure the
limit to coinfection requires estimates of the values of the fitness
parameters dM, dL, WM, and WL.
The strategy used to measure
WM and
WL was to cross MX phage with wild-type

6,
and similarly for LX phage, at multiplicity
of infection equal to 0.02. At any multiplicity, the proportion
of infected cells is from equation
1 equal to 1
p(0), and the
proportion of cells
infected with only one phage is
p(1). At a
multiplicity of
0.02, the frequency of cells infected with one
phage among all infected
cells is
p(1)/[1
p(0)] = 0.990. Thus,
following
the relative number of MX (or LX) in a cross with wild-type

6 at a
multiplicity of 0.02 offers a good estimate of
WM (or
WL) because 99%
of the reproduction will be infected by cells
with either one MX (or
LX) phage or one wild-type phage. As the
procedure for estimating
WM and
WL is identical,
the analysis
to follow considers only
WM.
WM and
WL are measured relative
to
wild-type phage in separate
experiments.
Let
q be the frequency of MX before reproduction in a cross
with wild-type

6 at a multiplicity of infection of
m = 0.02.
If
q' is the frequency of MX phage after
reproduction, then (see
reference
6)
|
(16)
|
Because
W+ = 1 as defined above,
WM can be solved from equation 16 by measuring
q and
q'.
To determine
dM and
dL,
we noted that each parameter could be estimated by crossing MX or LX
with wild-type phage at a higher
multiplicity of infection and
measuring the frequency of (+++)
phage in the progeny. A multiplicity
of 5 was chosen. The strategy
used is again presented only for MX
because
dM and
dL were
estimated
in separate experiments, and the procedure for LX is
equivalent.
Unlike the previous cross between MX and LX, a cross between MX and
wild-type phage produces (+++) progeny that are hybrids
(from mixed
infections) and nonhybrids (from infection of wild-type
alone). Thus,
the estimate of
dM is based on the total
frequency
of (+++) phage and not simply that of hybrids. The number of
(+++)
progeny produced during pure infections involving the wild type
is
|
(17)
|
Within mixed infections, the probability of obtaining
a (+++) phage depends only on the sampling of one segment, and
equation
11 is simplified to
|
(18)
|
Thus, the number of (+++) progeny produced by mixed infections is
derived by modifying equation 12 and replacing equation
11 with
equation 18 to obtain
|
(19)
|
To convert the number of (+++) progeny into a frequency, it must
be divided by the total number of progeny, which in equation
15 corresponded to the sum of equations 13 and 14. For the present
estimate, equation 14 is unchanged, but equation 13, which describes
the contribution of pure infections, is changed because the cross
is
now between MX and wild-type phage. Thus, equation 13 becomes
|
(20)
|
Combining these changes, the expected frequency of (+++) phage
produced in a cross between MX and wild-type phage is therefore
|
(21)
|
The above derivations allowed
WM and
WL to be estimated directly from equation 16 and
used immediately in any other equation.
However, although
P
in equation 21 could be measured experimentally,
it was not possible to
solve directly for
dM because
N was
still
an unknown. Thus, equation 21 had to be solved by assuming a
series
of possible values of
N. For each assumed valued of
N, equation
21 was iterated with increasing values of
dM to yield a value
of
P that
differed by less than 10
4 from an experimentally
determined value of
P. An estimate of
dL was then similarly derived for the same
series of assumed values
of
N.
Once they were obtained, the estimated and assumed values of
dM, dL, and
N were
used with equation 15 to generate the expected
values of
H
over a range of multiplicities of infection in crosses
between MX and
LX phages. Comparing these expected values to the
experimentally
observed values of
H allowed the final estimate
of
N.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Stocks and culture conditions.
All phages and bacteria were
grown, plated, incubated, and diluted at 25°C in LC medium
(13) by standard microbiological and previously described
methods (4). The wild-type
6 and its host bacterium,
Pseudomonas phaseolicola, were obtained from the American
Type Culture Collection (no. 21781-B1 and 21781, respectively). From L. Mindich (Public Health Research Institute, New York City) we obtained
LM1034, a P. phaseolicola host containing plasmid pLM746,
which encodes the beta subunit of the
-galactosidase (B-Gal) gene
(17); MX, the
6 phage with a
-Gal marker on the medium
segment; and LX, the
6 phage with a
-Gal marker on the large segment.
Genetic markers.
The
-Gal marker encodes the alpha
subunit of the
-Gal gene. On selective plates containing 0.4% X-Gal
(5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-
-D-galactopyranoside) and a
200-µl lawn of overnight LM1034 culture, marked and unmarked phages
form blue and white plaques, respectively. All phages in this study can
be symbolized by their segment markers (small, medium, large),
where + refers to wild-type and X refers to marked segments as
follows: wild type (+++), MX (+ X +), and LX (++ X). The
-Gal marker
was found to be extremely stable in MX and LX (data not shown), such
that revertants could be ignored in our experiments.
Crosses.
Two phages were crossed by single-burst experiments
(22), which correspond to one cycle of infection and
reproduction in a host cell. The phage were mixed at a 1:1 ratio and
allowed 40 min adsorption to the host bacterium in LC broth at the
desired multiplicity of infection. To obtain the desired multiplicity, phage numbers were adjusted by dilution and added to the bacteria that
had been determined by spectrophotometer to be at a density of 4 × 108 cells ml
1. To remove free phage after
the adsorption period, infected cells were washed three times by
centrifugation for 1 min at 6,000 rpm in an Eppendorf microcentrifuge,
and the pellet was resuspended in LC broth, a derivative of Luria
broth. After an additional 80 min, at which point most of the cells
have burst (24), the lysate was filtered
(0.22-µm-pore-size; Durapore, Millipore) to remove surviving cells
and to obtain the viral progeny containing the hybrid phage. The
progeny were assayed by plating on X-Gal plates to determine the total
number of phage and the frequency of (+++) hybrid phage, which do not
carry any marked segments and therefore form white plaques.
Computer modeling.
All iterations were by a Quick Basic
program that is available upon request.
 |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
By applying equation 16, estimates of WM
and WL were obtained by measuring q
and q' at a multiplicity of infection of 0.02. On the basis
of three independent replicates, it was determined that
WM = 0.228 ± 0.029 standard error and
WL = 0.599 ± 0.086 standard error.
Following the described protocol (see (Parameter estimation),
dM, dL, and N were
estimated by solving equations 15 and 21 simultaneously. For an assumed
value of N, the corresponding values of
dM and dL were
substituted into equation 15 to generate a curve describing the
relationship between the expected values of H for
multiplicities of infection ranging from 1 to 25. A family of curves
was then generated by assuming values of N from 1 to infinity (i.e., N
100) (Fig.
1). As indicated earlier, experimental estimates of P were required for the initial solutions
of equation 21, and values of 0.865 ± 0.017 standard error and
0.653 ± 0.010 standard error were obtained, respectively, from
MX × wild-type and LX × wild-type crosses at a multiplicity
of 5. As the multiplicity of infection is increased for the larger
values of N in Fig. 1, the expected values of
H asymptote above 0.25 because of the fitness disadvantage
suffered by marked phage and segments. In the absence of any fitness
difference, the asymptote should be 0.25 (see Experimental design).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Comparison between expected and observed values of
H, frequency of (+++) hybrids generated in crosses between
genotypes MX (+ X +) and LX (++ X). Curves were generated by a
mathematical model that predicts H over a range of
multiplicities of infection (m), assuming a defined limit to
coinfection (N). Expected values for H are
adjusted if marked segments experience a replicative disadvantage
relative to wild type (see text for details). Observed values of
H were generated in two replicate experimental crosses
between phages MX and LX at eight multiplicities of infection (0.02, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 25). Each point represents an independent estimate.
Observed H saturates at a value corresponding to a limit of
between two and three phages per cell.
|
|
To determine an estimate of N by a fit of observed values of
H to the curves in Fig. 1, MX and LX phage were crossed over a range of increasing multiplicities of infection. Crosses were replicated two times at each multiplicity, and the frequency of (+++)
hybrids was measured by sampling the progeny population by three
independent dilutions. The mean of the three samples provided the
experimental estimates of H and are presented as a function
of the multiplicity in Fig. 1. These data reveal that hybrid frequency
increases with multiplicity but reaches a plateau of approximately
H = 0.23. The observed maximum matches our mathematical model for a limit to coinfection between two and three phages per cell
and Olkkonen and Bamford's (16) earlier estimate of three
phages per cell.
Observed values are greater than expected at very low multiplicities of
infection (Fig. 1), suggesting that coinfection at low multiplicities
may be enhanced above the rate predicted by a random Poisson sampling.
A possible explanation for the enhancement is the outer lipid membrane
of
6 (1, 15). The stickiness of the membrane causes the
phage to clump and may therefore enhance the entry of multiple phages
into a cell. As a limit to coinfection may have evolved in viruses to
prevent competition (see above), it is appealing to consider whether
any enhancement, by clumping or an alternative mechanism, is either a
passive consequence of the physiology of the phage or an evolved
adaptation. Previous studies with
6 have shown that coinfection can
be advantageous to the phage because it leads to sexual reproduction
(segment reassortment); sex is advantageous because it combats the
buildup of deleterious mutations by recreating (from mutated genomes) progeny with no or fewer mutations (2, 4, 5). Overall, our
data suggest that
6 may have evolved mechanisms to enhance coinfection at low multiplicities of infection and to limit coinfection at high multiplicities. Such adaptations would serve to balance the costly and beneficial effects associated with viral coinfection.
It is hoped that the results of this study will encourage
additional studies of the existence and mechanism for a limit
to coinfection in viruses. Many issues clearly
remain unanswered. How widespread is the phenomenon? To what
extent is the limit controlled by viral or host genes? The model
presented here potentially provides an easier method for detecting the
limit in viruses capable of forming genetic hybrids. An immediately
obvious advantage of the method is that the larger sample sizes it
generates could be used to identify additional processes such as the
enhancement of coinfection at low multiplicities.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank J. Madert for laboratory assistance, L. Mindich for
generous donation of viral and bacterial strains, and T. Wright and two
anonymous reviewers for useful criticism of the manuscript.
This work was supported by the following: postdoctoral fellowships to
P.E.T. from the National Science Foundation (BIR-9510816) and
University of Maryland; a postdoctoral fellowship to K.A.H. from a
National Science Foundation Biology of Small Populations Research
Training Grant (BIR-9602266); and a predoctoral fellowship to C.L.B.
from Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Present address: Departament de
Genètica and Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat i
Biologìa Evolutiva, Universitat de València, C/ Dr.
Moliner 50, Burjassot, 46100 València, Spain. Phone: (34) 96 398 3315. Fax: (34) 96 398 3029. E-mail: pt55{at}umail.umd.edu.
Present address: Department of Biology, 0116, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Bamford, D. H.,
M. Romantschuk, and P. J. Somerharju.
1987.
Membrane fusion in prokaryotes: bacteriophage 6 membrane fuses with the Pseudomonas syringae outer membrane.
EMBO J.
6:1467-1473[Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Chao, L.
1990.
Fitness of RNA virus decreased by Muller's ratchet.
Nature
348:454-455[Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Chao, L.
1994.
Evolution of genetic exchange in RNA viruses, p. 233-250.
In
S. S. Morse (ed.), The evolutionary biology of viruses. Raven Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 4.
|
Chao, L.,
T. Tran, and C. Matthews.
1992.
Muller's ratchet and the advantage of sex in the RNA virus 6.
Evolution
46:289-299.
|
| 5.
|
Chao, L.,
T. T. Tran, and T. T. Tran.
1997.
The advantage of sex in the RNA virus 6.
Genetics
147:953-959[Abstract].
|
| 6.
|
Crow, J. F., and M. Kimura.
1970.
An introduction to population genetics theory.
Harper & Row, New York, N.Y.
|
| 7.
|
Dangler, C. A.,
R. E. Deaver, and C. M. Kolodziej.
1994.
Genetic recombination between two strains of Aujesky's disease virus at reduced multiplicity of infection.
J. Gen. Virol.
75:295-299[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Gottlieb, P.,
S. Metzger,
M. Romantschuk,
J. Carton,
J. Strassman,
D. H. Bamford,
N. Kalkkinen, and L. Mindich.
1988.
Nucleotide sequence of the middle dsRNA segment of bacteriophage 6: placement of the genes of membrane-associated proteins.
Virology
163:183-190[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Holland, J. J.
1991.
Defective viral genomes, p. 151-165.
In
B. N. Fields, D. M. Knipe, et al. (ed.), Fundamental virology, 2nd ed. Raven Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 10.
|
Huang, A. S., and D. Baltimore.
1970.
Defective viral particles and viral disease processes.
Nature
226:325-327[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Lewontin, R. C.
1970.
The units of selection.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
1:1-18.
|
| 12.
|
McGraw, T.,
L. Mindich, and B. Frangione.
1986.
Nucleotide sequence of the small double-stranded RNA segment of bacteriophage 6: novel mechanisms of natural translational control.
J. Virol.
58:142-151[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Mindich, L.,
J. F. Sinclair,
D. Levine, and J. Cohen.
1976.
Genetic studies of temperature-sensitive and nonsense mutants of bacteriophage 6.
Virology
75:218-223[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Mindich, L.,
I. Nemhauser,
P. Gottlieb,
M. Romantschuk,
J. Carton,
S. Frucht,
J. Strassman,
D. H. Bamford, and N. Kalkkinen.
1988.
Nucleotide sequence of the large double-stranded RNA segment of bacteriophage 6: genes specifying the viral replicase and transcriptase.
J. Virol.
62:1180-1185[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Mindich, L., and D. H. Bamford.
1988.
Lipid-containing bacteriophages, p. 475-520.
In
R. Calendar (ed.), The bacteriophages, vol. 2. Plenum Publishing, New York, N.Y.
|
| 16.
|
Olkkonen, V. M., and D. H. Bamford.
1989.
Quantitation of the adsorption and penetration stages of bacteriophage 6 infection.
J. Virol.
171:229-238.
|
| 17.
|
Onodera, S.,
X. Qiao,
P. Gottlieb,
J. Strassman,
M. Frilander, and L. Mindich.
1993.
RNA structure and heterologous recombination in the double-stranded RNA bacteriophage 6.
J. Virol.
67:4914-4922[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Semancik, J. S.,
A. K. Vidaver, and J. L. Van Etten.
1973.
Characterization of a segmented double-helical RNA from bacteriophage 6.
J. Mol. Biol.
78:617-625[Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Simon, K. O.,
J. J. Cardamone,
P. A. Whitaker-Dowling,
J. Youngner, and C. C. Widnell.
1990.
Cellular mechanisms in the superinfection exclusion of vesicular stomatitis virus.
Virology
177:375-379[Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Singh, I.,
M. Suomalainen,
S. Varadarajan,
H. Garoff, and A. Helenius.
1997.
Multiple mechanisms for the inhibition of entry and uncoating of superinfecting Semliki Forest virus.
Virology
231:59-71[Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf.
1981.
Biometry, 2nd ed.
Freeman, San Francisco, Calif.
|
| 22.
|
Stent, G.
1963.
Molecular biology of bacterial viruses.
Freeman, San Francisco, Calif.
|
| 23.
|
Turner, P. E., and L. Chao.
1998.
Sex and the evolution of intrahost competition in RNA virus 6.
Genetics
150:523-532[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Vidaver, K. A.,
R. K. Koski, and J. L. Van Etten.
1973.
Bacteriophage 6: a lipid-containing virus of Pseudomonas phaseolicola.
J. Virol.
11:799-805[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
von Magnus, P.
1954.
Incomplete forms of influenza virus.
Adv. Virus Res.
2:59-79[Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Zebovitz, E., and A. Brown.
1968.
Interference among group A arboviruses.
J. Virol.
2:1283-1289[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Journal of Virology, March 1999, p. 2420-2424, Vol. 73, No. 3
0022-538X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Gonzalez-Jara, P., Fraile, A., Canto, T., Garcia-Arenal, F.
(2009). The Multiplicity of Infection of a Plant Virus Varies during Colonization of Its Eukaryotic Host. J. Virol.
83: 7487-7494
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Gao, H., Feldman, M. W.
(2009). Complementation and Epistasis in Viral Coinfection Dynamics. Genetics
182: 251-263
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Martcheva, M., Bolker, B. M, Holt, R. D
(2008). Vaccine-induced pathogen strain replacement: what are the mechanisms?. J R Soc Interface
5: 3-13
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Froissart, R., Wilke, C. O., Montville, R., Remold, S. K., Chao, L., Turner, P. E.
(2004). Co-infection Weakens Selection Against Epistatic Mutations in RNA Viruses. Genetics
168: 9-19
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Novella, I. S., Reissig, D. D., Wilke, C. O.
(2004). Density-Dependent Selection in Vesicular Stomatitis Virus. J. Virol.
78: 5799-5804
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Worobey, M., Holmes, E. C.
(1999). Evolutionary aspects of recombination in RNA viruses. J. Gen. Virol.
80: 2535-2543
[Full Text]