Minor envelope proteins from GP2a to GP4 contribute to the spread pattern and yield of type 2 PRRSV in MARC-145 cells

This review focuses on the monophyletic group of animal RNA viruses united in the order Nidovirales. The order includes the distantly related coronaviruses, toroviruses, and roniviruses, which possess the largest known RNA genomes (from 26 to 32 kb) and will therefore be called ‘large’ nidoviruses in this review. They are compared with their arterivirus cousins, which also belong to the Nidovirales despite having a much smaller genome (13–16 kb). Common and unique features that have been identified for either large or all nidoviruses are outlined. These include the nidovirus genetic plan and genome diversity, the composition of the replicase machinery and virus particles, virus-specific accessory genes, the mechanisms of RNA and protein synthesis, and the origin and evolution of nidoviruses with small and large genomes. Nidoviruses employ single-stranded, polycistronic RNA genomes of positive polarity that direct the synthesis of the subunits of the replicative complex, including the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and helicase. Replicase gene expression is under the principal control of a ribosomal frameshifting signal and a chymotrypsin-like protease, which is assisted by one or more papain-like proteases. A nested set of subgenomic RNAs is synthesized to express the 3′-proximal ORFs that encode most conserved structural proteins and, in some large nidoviruses, also diverse accessory proteins that may promote virus adaptation to specific hosts. The replicase machinery includes a set of RNA-processing enzymes some of which are unique for either all or large nidoviruses. The acquisition of these enzymes may have improved the low fidelity of RNA replication to allow genome expansion and give rise to the ancestors of small and, subsequently, large nidoviruses.

Two different cell populations, high- (MARC-145) and low-permissive cell clones (L-1) to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus, were derived from MA-104 cell line (parent cell: P) by cell cloning. Maximum virus yields in MARC-145, P, and L-1 cell clones were 10(8.5), 10(3.5), and 10(2.5) tissue culture infective dose 50 (TCID50)/0.1 ml, respectively. The MARC-145 cell clone supported replication of all 11 different porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus isolates that were tested. These results indicated that the MARC-145 cells will be useful for PRRS virus replication.

In early 1991, the Dutch pig-industry was struck by the so-called mystery swine disease. Large-scale laboratory investigations were undertaken to search for the etiological agent. We focused on isolating viruses and mycoplasmas, and we tested paired sera of affected sows for antibodies against ten known pig viruses. The mycoplasmas M. hyosynoviae, M. hyopneumoniae, and Acholeplasma laidlawii, and the viruses encephalomyocarditis virus and porcine enterovirus types 2 and 7 were isolated from individual pigs. An unknown agent, however, was isolated from 16 of 20 piglets and from 41 of 63 sows. This agent was characterised as a virus and designated Lelystad virus. No relationship between this virus and other viruses has yet been established. Of 165 sows reportedly afflicted by the disease, 123 (75 per cent) seroconverted to Lelystad virus, whereas less than 10 per cent seroconverted to any of the other virus isolates or to the known viral pathogens. Antibodies directed against Lelystad virus were also found in pigs with mystery swine disease in England, Germany, and in the United States. We conclude that infection with Lelystad virus is the likely cause of mystery swine disease.