RESULTS: Phylogenetic analysis revealed at least four distinct DENV3/III lineages. Two of the lineages (DENV3/III-B and DENV3/III-C) are current actively circulating whereas the DENV3/III-A and DENV3/III-D were no longer recovered since the 1980s. Selection pressure analysis revealed strong evidence of positive selection on a number of amino acid sites in PrM, E, NS1, NS2a, NS2b, NS3, NS4a, and NS5. The Malaysian DENV3/III isolates recovered in the 1980s (MY.59538/1987) clustered into DENV3/III-B, which was the lineage with cosmopolitan distribution consisting of strains actively circulating in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The Malaysian isolates recovered after the 2000s clustered within DENV3/III-C. This DENV3/III-C lineage displayed a more restricted geographical distribution and consisted of isolates recovered from Asia, denoted as the Asian lineage. Amino acid variation sites in NS5 (NS5-553I/M, NS5-629 T, and NS5-820E) differentiated the DENV3/III-C from other DENV3 viruses. The codon 629 of NS5 was identified as a positively selected site. While the NS5-698R was identified as unique to the genome of DENV3/III-C3. Phylogeographic results suggested that the recent Malaysian DENV3/III-C was likely to have been introduced from Singapore in 2008 and became endemic. From Malaysia, the virus subsequently spread into Taiwan and Thailand in the early part of the 2010s and later reintroduced into Singapore in 2013.
CONCLUSIONS: Distinct clustering of the Malaysian old and new DENV3/III isolates suggests that the currently circulating DENV3/III in Malaysia did not descend directly from the strains recovered during the 1980s. Phylogenetic analyses and common genetic traits in the genome of the strains and those from the neighboring countries suggest that the Malaysian DENV3/III is likely to have been introduced from the neighboring regions. Malaysia, however, serves as one of the sources of the recent regional spread of DENV3/III-C3 within the Asia region.
RESULTS: A first set of sORFs was identified from existing annotations that fitted the maximum of 80 residues criterion. A second set was predicted using parameters that specifically searched for ORF candidates of 80 codons or less in the exonic, intronic and intergenic sequences of the subject genomes. A total of 1986 conserved sORFs were predicted and characterized.
CONCLUSIONS: It is evident that numerous open reading frames that could potentially encode for polypeptides consisting of 80 amino acid residues or less are overlooked during standard gene prediction and annotation. From our results, additional targeted reannotation of genomes is clearly able to complement standard genome annotation to identify sORFs. Due to the lack of, and limitations with experimental validation, we propose that a simple conservation analysis can provide an acceptable means of ensuring that the predicted sORFs are sufficiently clear of gene prediction artefacts.