Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Defective viral genomes are key drivers of the virus–host interaction

Abstract

Viruses survive often harsh host environments, yet we know little about the strategies they utilize to adapt and subsist given their limited genomic resources. We are beginning to appreciate the surprising versatility of viral genomes and how replication-competent and -defective virus variants can provide means for adaptation, immune escape and virus perpetuation. This Review summarizes current knowledge of the types of defective viral genomes generated during the replication of RNA viruses and the functions that they carry out. We highlight the universality and diversity of defective viral genomes during infections and discuss their predicted role in maintaining a fit virus population, their impact on human and animal health, and their potential to be harnessed as antiviral tools.

Main

Viruses are remarkably resilient microorganisms able to adapt and survive in the complex host physiological and immune environment. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that viruses can generate modified forms of their genome during replication as tools to adapt to environmental challenges. While the standard genome encodes all the viral proteins required for sustaining viral replication, viral variants contain random mutations that can serve to enhance the ability of the virus to adapt to new conditions1. In addition, defective viral genomes (DVGs) and an expanding family of sub-viral particles (Box 1) that result from either small mutations or drastic truncations and modifications of the viral genome render the virus unable to complete a full replication cycle in the absence of a helper full-length virus to complement the functions lost.

DVGs were identified by Preben Von Magnus in the late 1940s as incomplete influenza viruses able to interfere with the replication of the wild-type virus2. More than two decades after their discovery, Alice Huang and David Baltimore coined the term defective interfering (DI) particles, or DIPs, to define viral particles that contain normal structural proteins but only a part of the viral genome. In addition, they stipulated that DIPs can only replicate in the presence of helper virus and that they interfere with the intracellular replication of non-defective homologous virus3. Huang and Baltimore theorized that DIPs play a critical role in determining viral pathogenesis. Follow-up studies using viruses grown to contain either a large content of DIPs, or depleted of them, revealed that DIPs reduced virulence in vivo4,5, induced high levels of interferon (IFN) during infections in vitro6,7,8, and promoted viral persistence in vitro9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and in vivo17,18. However, despite their ubiquitous presence and important functions, the lack of appropriate technology to identify DIPs in infections in vivo led to a widespread belief that DIPs and their DVGs were largely a product of in vitro virus replication and were not relevant in natural viral infections19,20. By the late 1990s, the study of DVGs had slowed down drastically and was limited to their use as tools for studying viral replication or as potential antivirals.

Today, DVGs have been described in most RNA viruses (Table 1) and technological advances have contributed to establishing their role as de facto danger signals for triggering of antiviral immunity in many infections. In addition, we are beginning to appreciate their impact on the clinical outcome of natural infections and on the evolution of viruses. Moreover, we are witnessing rapid advancements in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms that regulate the generation of DVGs and those explaining their paradoxical roles in promoting antiviral immunity and viral persistence.

Table 1 RNA virus families with described DVGs

Here, we review evidence accumulated over more than half a century of observations on DVG generation and activity during RNA virus infections. We highlight recent advances that illustrate their critical impact on viral dynamics and evolution during both acute and long-term virus–host interactions. See Box 2 for a glossary of relevant terms.

Classes, types, structures and diversity

Different types of DVGs are defined by the type of genomic alterations present. Next generation sequencing (NGS) has revealed a large variety of DVG species present in some infections, and recent studies have begun to elucidate the distinct functions of these different DVGs.

Point mutations, hypermutations and frame shifts

While the first DVGs to be identified and distinguished from the wild-type full-length viral genome lacked large parts of the genome21,22,23,24,25, there are a number of DVG types that do not involve drastic genomic alterations. Point mutations in RNA viruses can result in detrimental alterations because of the highly constrained nature of their genome organization. Indeed, a majority of randomly introduced mutations are either lethal or confer a significant fitness cost, as observed for vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)26, poliovirus27 and influenza virus28. While it is inherently understood that detrimental mutations give rise to defective genomes, such genome types have historically not been considered DVGs. A genome harbouring a detrimental mutation in a structural protein could replicate, but not assemble properly; while a detrimental mutation in the replicase would yield a genome that can produce proper structural and assembly proteins, but could not replicate. Either of these genomes could potentially hijack the lacking functions from (and thus, interfere with) a full-length co-infecting virus. Indeed, studies where mutation rates are increased to perturb a viral population from viability to non-viability, revealed that the defective RNAs that appear prior to population extinction interfere with replication of a wild-type viral genome29,30. Hypermutations and mutations leading to frame shifts also result in defective viruses31 (Fig. 1a). One example is mutations introduced by the cellular protein APOBEC3G into pro-retroviruses32. APOBEC3G deaminates deoxycytidine nucleotides in the viral DNA, leading to hypermutations that interfere with the ability of the viral genome to integrate into the host genome and replicate. Interestingly, in opposition to an interfering activity for these mutated pro-viruses, it has been proposed that defective proviruses enhance fitness and that complementation among them drives viral persistence and pathogenesis33,34.

Fig. 1: Classes of DVGs.
figure1

a, Mutations in the viral genomes can lead to the generation of DVGs. These mutations can be single point mutations, hypermutations or frameshift mutations that alter virus replication, viral protein expression and/or viral protein function. b, Deletion-type DVGs occur when the polymerase skips part of the genome during replication and generates a truncated version of the genome. Deletion DVGs could also involve genomic rearrangements and gene duplication. Deletion generally results in lost or altered expression of one or more genes. c, Snap-back and copy-back DVGs are generated in nsRNA viruses when a sequence is duplicated in reverse complement to create theoretical panhandle structures for copy-back DVGs or hairpin structures for snap-back DVGs. Complementary sequence duplication occurs when the polymerase is released from the template strand and reattaches back to the nascent strand, copying back the end of the nascent genome. They can also occur from the polymerase copying back another complementary genome bound in trans. Most described snap-back and copy-back DVGs are generated from the 5’ end of the genome with the complementary end containing a duplication of the unstranslated region (UTR). Various degrees of complementation within Gene Z in the illustrated model can be found in copy-back DVGs. These types of genomes are not transcribed but can be replicated by the viral polymerase.

Deletions

The genomic viral species most commonly referred to as DVGs are truncated viral genomes resulting from large internal deletions occurring during viral replication. Deletion DVGs tend to bear single large truncations that remove several or all essential genes required for self-propagation while retaining 5′ and 3′ ends as well as other RNA structural elements required for polymerase binding, replication and/or packaging35,36,37. Multiple variants also exist, including DVGs that can be described as ‘mosaic’ in that they appear to be the result of multiple recombination and rearrangement events, including deletions, insertions, duplications and even inversions of parts of the genome38,39,40 (Fig. 1b).

Copy-backs

Copy-back and snap-back DVGs are rearranged genomes in which a sequence is duplicated in reverse complement to create theoretical stem-like structures (panhandle structures for copy-back DVGs or hairpin structures for snap-back DVGs)41,42,43. Copy-back DVGs have been reported in many negative-sense (ns)RNA viruses and are generated from the 5′ end of the genome in a process that produces DVGs with complementary 3′ and 5′ termini44,45. If the complementary region of the DVG comprises almost the entire sequence, the DVG can be further characterized as a snap-back DVG43 (Fig. 1c). Copy-back DVGs are predicted to be generated when the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) detaches from the template and reattaches to the nascent strand, copying back the end of the genome42,46.

DVG diversity during infection

Historically, it was thought that only certain viruses generated DVGs and that only one or a few distinct DVGs existed for any given virus. Most studies originally relied on high multiplicity of infection (MOI) passaging conditions that favoured the emergence of larger deletions (and thus, smaller DVGs) that could rapidly outcompete the longer full-length genomes owing to reduced replication times. Furthermore, these works relied on methods with low sensitivity of detection (such as visualization and purification on agarose gels) that would only isolate the most abundant DVGs. However, evidence for populations of distinct species of DVGs in a single infection has been reported since the 1980s45,47. We now know the diversity of DVGs to be much larger than initially appreciated and that certain DVGs are better than others at reaching high abundance, likely by retaining certain properties that confer replication advantage such as packaging signals and replication elements, or by acquiring the ability to interfere with the replication of other variants. NGS has revealed that DVGs are present in virtually any and every virus population, and that the diversity of DVGs is immense; however, the relative abundance of any given deletion or rearrangement varies, likely indicating that a variety of factors drive DVG generation and accumulation. The use of single-cell sequencing technology will allow precise quantification of the frequency and diversity of DVGs in an infected cell and will provide data on the distribution of DVG variants among a cell population.

Since most NGS alignment tools filter out reads with more than two mismatches, reads corresponding to deletion breakpoints or rearrangement junctions are rejected from a typical virus genome alignment. A re-analysis of rejected reads would identify these DVG hallmarks. With growing interest in this neglected part of the viral population, informatics tools such as ViReMa48, DI-tector49 and VODKA50 are emerging. These tools re-examine reads that potentially harbour jumbled or rearranged viral sequences and have enabled a broader appreciation of DVG diversity. A current challenge with NGS data is to determine how best to differentiate between true DVGs and background error of NGS, how to quantify the relative abundance of any given DVG with respect to full-length virus, and how best to normalize between samples and between sequencing runs—problems that are similar to transcriptome analysis of genetic isoforms. Furthermore, with increasing data sets and samples, it is becoming evident that DVG species are not necessarily the same if generated in different host and cell types, and the factors dictating these differences remain to be uncovered.

Mechanisms of DVG generation

DVGs have been long considered the result of stochastic mistakes introduced by the viral RNA polymerase that lacks proofreading activity. However, new evidence suggests that additional factors control DVG generation, opening the possibility of manipulating their generation for therapeutic purposes.

Random products or encoded in the viral genome?

While DVGs are generated by many viruses, the molecular mechanisms that govern their generation are poorly understood. A predominant theory is that DVGs arise from random errors that occur during viral replication at high viral titers due to the combination of a lack of proofreading activity of the viral polymerase and the presence of lower fidelity variants that favour the generation of deletions. In support, analyses using deep sequencing approaches revealed that multiple species of DVGs are generated during infection. For example, in infections with Flock house virus, a positive-sense (ps)RNA virus, ClickSeq and nanopore sequencing identified a large and seemingly random population of deletion DVGs early after infection48. In addition, sequencing analysis of nasopharyngeal samples from influenza virus-infected humans or infections in vitro with human metapneumovirus or measles virus (MeV) revealed multiple DVG species in these infections51,52,53. However, different from deletion and point mutation DVGs, copy-back DVGs are frequently found in discrete dominant populations in an infected cell or tissue, and the same copy-back DVG seems to arise in independent infections with the same parental virus54,55 or during infections with different virus strains56. The demonstration of hotspots for the generation of copy-back DVGs from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and the identification of specific nucleotides that determine where copy-back DVGs rejoin further demonstrate that the generation of copy-back DVGs is not completely random, but instead that specific sequences encoded in the viral genome direct or facilitate their formation50. In support, deep sequencing approaches have revealed discrete dominant DVG populations in infections with parainfluenza virus 5 and VSV57,58. Sequence similarities have been reported in the 5′ and 3′ regions flanking DVG deletion sites during influenza infection51,59, suggesting that there is also some degree of conservation in the generation of deletion DVGs. These observations indicate that, at least in some infections, DVG generation is not a completely stochastic process and, instead, virus-encoded sequences favour the production and/or amplification of predominant DVGs. It remains to be determined whether conservation is a property of certain DVG types and which specific sequences and/or RNA structures lead to DVG generation in these conditions.

Role of viral proteins

A number of viral proteins are implicated in the generation of DVGs, the best studied being the viral RdRP. Engineered viral polymerases with a decreased fidelity and an increased mutation rate produce highly attenuated viruses60,61 which, in many instances, correlate with enhanced production of DVGs62,63,64,65 (Fig. 2a). Although the mechanism mediating DVG generation by mutant RdRP remains speculative, a few models are emerging. For example, in viruses with low-fidelity RdRP, such as Sindbis virus or tombusvirus, an increased production of DVGs correlates with an enhanced rate of viral RNA recombination63,65. In addition, during influenza virus infection, variations in the elongation capacity of the polymerase associate with differential generation of DVGs64. A role for the polymerase multimerization activity was also recently proposed as a driver of DVG generation during influenza virus infection62.

Fig. 2: Mechanisms of DVG generation.
figure2

a, Variations in the viral RdRp fidelity due to mutations or effects of virus-encoded co-factors, such as the influenza A virus (IAV) NEP or the paramyxovirus C protein, can favour the generation of DVGs. b, Variants of the nucleoprotein with altered binding to viral RNA can promote DVG generation. c, Variants of structural proteins, such as the PPXY domain in the matrix protein of arenaviruses, can lead to DVG generation. d, Inter- and intra-recombination events using homologous sequences (red) can lead to the formation of deletion DVGs.

Viral proteins implicated in the regulation of viral transcription and replication are also associated with the generation of DVGs. Mutations in the influenza virus nuclear export protein (NEP, also known as NS2), which regulates the synthesis of complementary RNA, result in enhanced DVG production66. Similarly, deletion or mutations of the paramyxovirus C proteins that regulate template switching from antigenomic to genomic replication result in enhanced copy-back DVG production53,56 (Fig. 2a). Curiously, in infections with influenza virus lacking NEP or paramyxovirus lacking C, DVG production is observed in conditions that normally restrict the generation of DVGs, such as infections at low MOI. It is possible that the enhanced production of copy-back DVGs in these situations is related to higher template availability or to an indirect effect of viral polymerase activity, but the precise mechanism remains to be established. In addition, a single amino acid mutation in the Sendai virus (SeV) nucleoprotein that reduced the density of the ribonucleprotein associates with DVG generation67 (Fig. 2b). Lastly, in lymphocytic choriomeningitis mammarenavirus (LCMV) infection, the PPXY domain encoded within the matrix protein drives the production of viral particles containing defective genomes, but not those containing standard genomes68 (Fig. 2c).

Replication-driven template-switching

RNA recombination is a major driver of deletion DVG formation. A predominant model proposes that sequences at the break point or structural signals in the template RNA promote the replicase to switch to the acceptor RNA and resume synthesis (Fig. 2d). Replicase-driven recombination was proven in biochemical assays using RdRPs of a large number of RNA viruses69,70,71. Variations of this model include the forced template switch mechanism in which the replicase switches template after encountering the 5′ end of the template generating head-to-tail RNA dimers. If the templates are DVGs, these would lead to head-to-tail DVG dimers. The 5′ end could also be modified by endo- or exo-nucleases, leading to new versions of these genomes72.

RNA editing as a driver of DVG diversity

Editing of viral RNA leads to hypermutations and can result in the generation of DVGs, as reported in persistent measles infections31. In addition, a high rate of viral adenine-to-guanine (or uracil-to-cytosine) RNA editing by adenosine deaminase acting on RNA occurs in DVGs from VSV, human metapneumovirus and MeV38,52,53. In some cases, RNA editing regulates the immunostimulatory potential of DVGs53. However, the impact of DVG editing on viral replication seems to be virus-specific73. Whether DVGs have a higher rate of editing than the standard viral genome, as well as the impact of editing generated diversity in DVG evolution and selection, remains to be determined.

Roles in pathogenesis

DVGs have three well-described functions that relate to their role in pathogenesis: interference with standard viral replication, immunostimulation and establishment of viral persistence (Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3: Functions and modes of actions of DVGs.
figure3

a, Overview of the known effects of DVGs on the standard virus and host cells, as well as their impact on viral pathogenesis. b, Proposed mechanism of competition for viral products in cells containing several copies of standard virus and DVGs, resulting in ‘interference’. (1) The viral polymerase replicates DVGs more efficiently than standard virus due to their shorter length and flanking trailer promoters. (2) These DVG properties lead to faster accumulation of DVGs in the infected cell. (3) DVGs eventually outcompete standard virus to become the predominant species and interfere with standard virus replication. c, Proposed mechanism for immunostimulation and cell survival induced by copy-back DVGs. Infected cells first detect DVGs through the RNA sensors RIG-I or MDA5, which signal through the adaptor protein MAVS for the production and secretion of type I and III IFNs pro-inflammatory cytokines and pro-survival proteins.

Interference with viral replication and viral production

DVGs were discovered during the search for factors responsible for reduced infectivity of influenza virus after passages at high titers2. DVGs with the ability to interfere with the replication of their parental virus both in vitro and in vivo are found in most positive and negative-sense (ns)RNA viruses54,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82. DVGs accumulate at higher rates than full-length viral genomes in co-infected cells due to their shortened length and, in the case of copy-back species, their highly efficient flanking trailer promoters83,84. A predominant theory for how DVGs interfere with the replication of standard virus is based on the observed competition between defective and full-length viral genomes for viral components needed for replication (Fig. 3b). As DVGs accumulate to high levels, it is predicted that they can directly interfere with helper virus replication by monopolizing the viral polymerase and/or competing for structural proteins84,85.

It should be noted that while most evidence supports the notion that the shortest DVGs with largest deletions are best able to outcompete full-length virus because their much smaller size can be more rapidly replicated, most of these studies consist of high MOI cell culture conditions which favour competition dynamics based on replication kinetics. The question arises as to whether a longer deletion DVG that retains more coding sequence, yet contains mutated proteins (presumably replicating faster than full-length genomes, yet slower than the shortest DVGs), could be a better competitor of wild-type virus in certain conditions because it additionally expresses defective proteins that, in turn, interfere with wild-type proteins (for example, in multi-component structures such as capsids or replicases).

Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that DVGs and full-length viral genomes dominate in different cells during infection, conferring distinct functions to different infected cells86,87. While cells dominated with full-length viral genomes are the predominant producers of viral particles containing either full-length or defective genomes, cells enriched in DVGs do not produce many particles of any species86. These data highlight the need to consider the single cell versus population level impacts of DVGs during interference.

Triggers of antiviral immunity

DVGs, especially those of the copy-back type, strongly induce the expression of type I and III IFNs, tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β and other pro-inflammatory cytokines, and are the primary stimuli of antiviral immunity in many infections6,7,8,52,54,55,88,89,90 (Fig. 3c). In addition, DVG stimulation optimizes the antigen presentation capacity of antigen-presenting cells91,92. Accumulating evidence indicates that the immunostimulatory activity of DVGs is maintained in vivo and during natural infections in humans. Increased survival of infected mice in infections containing DVGs have been reported for multiple viruses5,19,93. In mice infected with the respiratory viruses SeV, influenza or RSV, IFNs and pro-inflammatory cytokines are strongly induced only after DVGs have accumulated to detectable levels54,55. Detection of DVGs in respiratory secretions of children infected with RSV correlates with expression of antiviral genes55, and highly pathogenic influenza virus isolates that fail to induce potent antiviral responses in humans have an impaired ability to generate DVGs62.

Immunostimulatory DVGs can be recognized by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), including Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs). While TLR signalling is not essential for production of type I IFNs in vitro in response to DVGs, RLR signalling is required55,88,94,95,96,97,98. SeV copy-back DVGs are stronger immunostimulators than deletion DVGs89 and are among the strongest known inducers of the antiviral response. Therefore, much of what we know of DVGs immunostimulatory activity is based on the study of SeV copy-back DVGs. Copy-back DVG RNA binds RIG-I94,97,99 and DVGs from SeV, MeV and RSV viruses strongly stimulate RIG-I-dependent signalling55,92,95. RIG-I is triggered by binding of 5′ di- or triphosphates present on uncapped RNA or short regions of double-stranded (ds)RNA. Phosphatase treatment suppresses the ability of in vitro-transcribed copy-back DVGs to trigger IFN production following transfection supporting the role of RIG-I in DVG sensing91,94,96. SeV DVGs can also associate with melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5)88,94, but the role for MDA5 in sensing other DVGs is less clear99,100. Other cellular proteins can also associate with DVGs. For example, MeV DVGs associate with the dsRNA binding protein named protein activator of the interferon-induced protein kinase to optimally activate RIG-I96.

DVG-induced RLR signalling is not simply a result of higher viral RNA content in the infected cells, as increasing the amount of DVG-deficient virus does not increase the IFN response54,88,92. Importantly, efficient sensing of copy-back DVGs occurs even in the presence of virus-encoded antagonists of the cellular sensing pathways88,92. These observations suggest that unique features of DVGs favour their detection during infection. The predicted long dsRNA stretch formed by the reverse complementary ends of copy-back DVGs was thought to be a critical factor in their immunostimulatory activity8,99,101. However, recent evidence demonstrates the existence of additional features in DVGs that have a larger impact on their immunostimulatory potential. Structural modelling identified a 44 nucleotide (nt)-long stem-loop motif (DVG70–114) in a SeV DVG-546, a well-characterized and potent immunostimulatory copy-back DVG, which was absent in the SeV genome and spans the unique junction formed between the genomic break and rejoin points that form this copy-back DVG. Deletion of DVG70–114 reduces the DVG immunostimulatory activity, while introduction of the motif into an immunologically inert RNA improves its ability to induce the expression of type I IFNs and IFN-stimulated genes94. DVG70–114 acts in concert with the 5′-triphosphate motif to activate RIG-I and allows for enhanced RLR polymerization, a marker of activation94. DVG70–114 is active in the context of SeV infection, as recombinant viruses carrying DVGs that lack this motif significantly lose immunostimulatory potential94. Failure to detect dsRNA through immunostaining during SeV infection102 and normal immunostimulatory activity following disruption of the complementarity between the 5′ and 3′ ends of copy-back SeV DVGs94 further support the notion that the predicted long complementary ends of copy-back DVGs have a minor role in the onset of anti-viral immunity. It remains to be determined when and how DVG70-114 is exposed during infection, and whether similar motifs are present in other highly immunostimulatory DVGs.

DVG immunostimulation is also an important factor in the modulation of infections in insects. Similar to the RIG-I and MDA5 PRRs in mammals, insects sense viral RNA through the protein Dicer-2. This protein processes the viral RNA into small interfering RNAs that protect insects from re-infection with the same virus103. DVGs are the primary targets for Dicer-2 (ref. 103). These observations indicate that the immunostimulatory activity of DVGs is widespread and may have a significant impact on the spread of pathogens within and across species.

Facilitators of RNA virus persistence

DIPs facilitate the establishment of persistently infected cell cultures in a variety of RNA virus infections, including influenza, SeV, Ebola, mumps and Semliki Forest virus10,13,14,15,74,104,105,106,107. Such in vitro evidence is accompanied by studies in mice showing that infection with Semliki Forest virus or LCMV containing DIPs establish persistent infections18,108, as well as one study reporting DVGs in the brain of human patients who had died due to post-MeV subacute sclerosing panencephalitis17.

DIPs and full-length viruses cycle asynchronously in many persistent infections in vitro109,110 and in vivo19,109. Cycling occurs in a predictable pattern and has been mathematically modelled using variations of the predator–prey model111. A theory to explain the asynchronous cycling of full-length viral genomes and DVGs during persistency was put forward in 1970 (ref. 3). This theory, which is based on the interference effect of DVGs on the replication of the full-length genome, proposed the following: DIPs accumulate during virus replication until they reach high concentrations and become predominant. In this condition, DVGs interfere with the replication of the full-length viral genome by competing for essential replication machinery, driving a reduction in the full-length virus. During this process, some previously uninfected cells are infected by standard virus and re-initiate the cycle. Interestingly, in some persistent infections the amount of DIPs appears constant112. What drives these cyclic patterns in some viruses but not others, and whether host factors such as the infected cell type influences the cycling pattern, remain unknown.

Recent evidence indicates that the mechanisms involved in the establishment of persistence are more complex than simple intracellular competition for the replication machinery among different types of viral genomes87. Using RNA in situ fluorescent hybridization, Xu et al. showed that during infection with SeV or RSV containing DIPs, there is heterogeneity in the content of viral genomes in the infected population87. While some cells are enriched in DVGs, others are enriched in standard full-length viral genomes. The mechanisms for this heterogeneity are currently unknown, however, striking functional differences among these cell populations are beginning to emerge86,87. Cells enriched in DVGs engage the RLR sensing pathway and produce IFNs and other pro-inflammatory molecules, including TNF. In addition, these cells induce a pro-survival program, also dependent on signalling through the RLR pathway. These programs protect DVG-high cells from TNF-mediated death, while cells lacking DVGs die during infection. Surviving DVG-high cells can be propagated for months as a persistent infection. This mechanism provides an explanation for the paradoxical stimulation of both antiviral immunity and establishment of persistence by DVGs. It remains unclear how the enhanced survival of DVG-high cells leads to persistence, and how this survival fits into the cycling of DVG and standard virus observed in many infections. Cycling may occur at the intracellular level (where each infected cell goes through cycles of standard viral genome or DVG enrichment driven by competition and interference with the viral replication machinery) and/or at the population level, where individual infected cells will determine the composition of the pool of standard virus or DIPs available for infection of new cells.

Use as antivirals and vaccine adjuvants

The strong interfering and immunostimulatory activities of DVGs make them attractive candidates for vaccine adjuvants and antivirals113,114. The ability of DIPs to interfere with the replication of standard viruses and diminish virus-associated disease has been extensively demonstrated in mice during infection with virus stocks containing DIPs4,54,75,77,115, even when the vaccine contained standard virus inactivated by ultraviolet treatment116. A similar protection has been reported in ferrets vaccinated with an influenza vaccine containing only DIPs117. Synthetically engineered DIPs with strong interfering potential, or ‘therapeutic interfering particles (TIPs)’, have been more recently proposed as a possible strategy to control viral infections. TIPs would theoretically replicate faster than the wild-type virus and therefore outcompete the virus hindering spread and transmission. TIPs would have the advantage of being active only in organisms already infected with the wild-type virus due to their dependence on a helper virus to replicate118,119. Although still in the exploratory phase, it remains to be determined how TIPs would impact virus persistence, the generation of adaptive mutations and the generation of new infectious viruses by complementation.

Whether protection elicited by natural or synthetic DIPs is due to direct interference with the standard virus replication or through strong immunostimulatory ability of DVGs is unclear. SeV copy-back DVGs augment the antigen presentation capacity of mouse and human dendritic cells, resulting in enhanced activation of T cells91. In addition, experimental vaccines against influenza virus and RSV adjuvanted with in vitro-transcribed SeV DVGs delivered subcutaneously, intramuscularly or intranasally show improved antibody production and increased protection from virus challenge91,120. SeV DVG-derived oligonucleotides (DDOs) containing the immunostimulatory motif DVG70–114 are effective adjuvants able to bias the humoral and cellular responses against inactivated virus and protein vaccines towards type I immune responses including antibodies of the IgG2a/c isotypes, Th1 CD4+ T cells and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in mice91,121. DDOs also synergize with the emulsion antibody AddaVax and enhance its type I immunity-driving potential by mechanisms that depends on type I IFNs121. Notably, a DIP influenza vaccine conferred protection to an unrelated virus through stimulation of type I IFN production122, suggesting that they can be used as prophylactic or therapeutic antivirals.

DVGs are present in live attenuated vaccines against polio, measles and influenza viruses76,123,124,125,126. However, their impact in the development of protective immunity and vaccine efficacy has not been formally assessed. Based on their interfering and immunostimulatory ability, it is speculated that DVGs may enhance the efficiency of the vaccine while enhancing safety of the virus by reducing its replication and spread. If correct, it would be important to carefully regulate the amount of DVGs in vaccine preparations to avoid complete interference and drastic reduction of the virus to a point of ineffectiveness.

Impact on viral evolution and dynamics

While recent NGS data reveal that hundreds of DVGs can arise within a single viral infection, the fact that a smaller subset of dominant DVGs are repeatedly detected in different samples50 indicates that complex dynamics are at play within the viral population. These complexities include competition (and possibly compensation or cooperation) between different DVGs and positive selection of the best competitors that implicates their relative fitness in relation to the wild-type parental virus and other DVGs. Parameters such as replication fitness, packaging, immunoregulation and other traits determine the virus dynamics. It is important to stress that most events leading to DVG formation, including mutations, deletions, recombination and translocations, are either non-viable or deleterious to the virus. In addition, although hundreds or even thousands of different DVGs are generated during a virus infection, the vast majority of these will be lost during the population bottlenecks that occur in vivo, for example when crossing anatomical barriers or during transmission from host to host127. However, there are instances where these genomes could make it through bottlenecks, such as during infections of hosts that are immunosuppressed or have comorbidities where founding populations are increased. In addition, infections may occur with virions that have co-packaged wild-type genomes and DVGs128 or virions may aggregate during infection enhancing co-transmission, as seen for VSV129 and poliovirus130. Current mathematical models have generally only considered one dominant DVG131,132; further development is required to incorporate the potential cooperation and competition among others.

While historically DVGs have been considered replication waste, an artifact of cell culture passaging conditions or simply a nuisance to laboratory experimentation, a renewed interest in this part of the viral population may reveal a more functional or biological relevance to their existence. Do DVGs exist for a reason? Why keep waste lying around? Given the notoriously high recombination and reassortment rates of some viruses, it is possible that for viruses that undergo recombination, DVGs can provide a repertoire of mutations that could feed back into the viable virus population to promote adaptation. It remains to be seen whether DVGs can provide a selective advantage to the virus, and whether the high MOI or localized co-infection conditions are biologically relevant outside of cell culture.

Recent work in insects suggests that DVGs, which are a preferred template for the generation of the viral DNA form of RNA viruses, provide additional substrate to help boost the RNA interference response that is responsible for viral persistence in insects103. Indeed, it was shown that a change in the amount of viral DNA generated during RNA virus infection in Drosophila, altered the persistence and kinetics of a wild-type RNA virus infection. The authors suggested that evolution has perhaps fine-tuned the production of DVGs to balance wild-type infection and promote persistence (and ultimately, transmission of viruses, including arboviruses in mosquitoes).

Additionally, a closer examination of DVG dynamics within viral populations can help better understand the biology of standard viruses. Indeed, in addition to distinguishing between the dispensable and indispensable nucleotide sequences, proteins and RNA structures, we can identify what viral components can operate in cis or in trans. A recent study of HCV DVGs, for example, identified novel cis-acting RNA structures that were required for replication and packaging133.

Concluding remarks

Emerging technologies that allow the identification of defective and standard viruses in natural infections, as well as those allowing the establishment of specific associations of DVGs with functional outcomes, have been crucial in reviving the interest in studying DVGs. Recent work has provided new appreciation for DVG diversity and the potentially critical role of DVGs in defining the clinical outcome of infections; however, a number of questions remain unanswered: what are the molecular mechanisms driving the generation of DVGs? Can DVGs be harnessed for the control of virus pathogenesis and spread? How do alterations in the DVG population impact virus evolution and adaptation to new hosts? How do host factors impact DVG accumulation and activity? Further technological developments and interdisciplinary research will be required to obtain these answers.

References

  1. 1.

    Poirier, E. Z. & Vignuzzi, M. Virus population dynamics during infection. Curr. Opin. Virol. 23, 82–87 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Von Magnus, P. & Gard, S. Studies on interference in experimental influenza. Ark. Kemi. Mineral. Geol. 24, 4 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Huang, A. S. & Baltimore, D. Defective viral particles and viral disease processes. Nature 226, 325–327 (1970).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barrett, A. D. & Dimmock, N. J. Modulation of Semliki Forest virus-induced infection of mice by defective-interfering virus. J. Infect. Dis. 150, 98–104 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rabinowitz, S. G. & Huprikar, J. The influence of defective-interfering particles of the PR-8 strain of influenza A virus on the pathogenesis of pulmonary infection in mice. J. Infect. Dis. 140, 305–315 (1979).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fuller, F. J. & Marcus, P. I. Interferon induction by viruses. IV. Sindbis virus: early passage defective-interfering particles induce interferon. J. Gen. Virol. 48, 63–73 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Johnston, M. D. The characteristics required for a Sendai virus preparation to induce high levels of interferon in human lymphoblastoid cells. J. Gen. Virol. 56, 175–184 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Marcus, P. I. & Sekellick, M. J. Defective interfering particles with covalently linked [±]RNA induce interferon. Nature 266, 815–819 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Andzhaparidze, O. G., Bogomolova, N. N., Boriskin Yu, S. & Drynov, I. D. Chronic non-cytopathic infection of human continuous cell lines with mumps virus. Acta Virol. 27, 318–328 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    De, B. K. & Nayak, D. P. Defective interfering influenza viruses and host cells: establishment and maintenance of persistent influenza virus infection in MDBK and HeLa cells. J. Virol. 36, 847–859 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kawai, A., Matsumoto, S. & Tanabe, K. Characterization of rabies viruses recovered from persistently infected BHK cells. Virology 67, 520–533 (1975).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kennedy, J. C. & Macdonald, R. D. Persistent infection with infectious pancreatic necrosis virus mediated by defective-interfering (DI) virus particles in a cell line showing strong interference but little DI replication. J. Gen. Virol. 58, 361–371 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lehmann-Grube, F., Slenczka, W. & Tees, R. A persistent and inapparent infection of L cells with the virus of lymphocytic choriomeningitis. J. Gen. Virol. 5, 63–81 (1969).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Roux, L. & Waldvogel, F. A. Establishment of Sendai virus persistent infection: biochemical analysis of the early phase of a standard plus defective interfering virus infection of BHK cells. Virology 112, 400–410 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schmaljohn, C. & Blair, C. D. Persistent infection of cultured mammalian cells by Japanese encephalitis virus. J. Virol. 24, 580–589 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sekellick, M. J. & Marcus, P. I. Persistent infection. I Interferon-inducing defective-interfering particles as mediators of cell sparing: possible role in persistent infection by vesicular stomatitis virus. Virology 85, 175–186 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Baczko, K. et al. Expression of defective measles virus genes in brain tissues of patients with subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. J. Virol. 59, 472–478 (1986).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Popescu, M. & Lehmann-Grube, F. Defective interfering particles in mice infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus. Virology 77, 78–83 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Mims, C. A. Rift Valley Fever virus in mice. IV. Incomplete virus; its production and properties. Brit. J. Exp. Pathol. 37, 129–143 (1956).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Viola, M. V., Scott, C. & Duffy, P. D. Persistent measles virus infection in vitro and in man. Arthritis Rheum. 21, S47–51 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Huang, A. S., Greenawalt, J. W. & Wagner, R. R. Defective T particles of vesicular stomatitis virus. I. Preparation, morphology, and some biologic properties. Virology 30, 161–172 (1966).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Duesberg, P. H. The RNA of influenza virus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 59, 930–937 (1968).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kingsbury, D. W., Portner, A. & Darlington, R. W. Properties of incomplete Sendai virions and subgenomic viral RNAs. Virology 42, 857–871 (1970).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cole, C. N., Smoler, D., Wimmer, E. & Baltimore, D. Defective interfering particles of poliovirus. I. Isolation and physical properties. J. Virol. 7, 478–485 (1971).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Repik, P. & Bishop, D. H. Determination of the molecular weight of animal RNA viral genomes by nuclease digestions. I. Vesicular stomatitis virus and its defective T particle. J. Virol. 12, 969–983 (1973).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sanjuan, R., Moya, A. & Elena, S. F. The distribution of fitness effects caused by single-nucleotide substitutions in an RNA virus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8396–8401 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Acevedo, A., Brodsky, L. & Andino, R. Mutational and fitness landscapes of an RNA virus revealed through population sequencing. Nature 505, 686–690 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Thyagarajan, B. & Bloom, J. D. The inherent mutational tolerance and antigenic evolvability of influenza hemagglutinin. eLife 3, e03300 (2014).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Perales, C., Mateo, R., Mateu, M. G. & Domingo, E. Insights into RNA virus mutant spectrum and lethal mutagenesis events: replicative interference and complementation by multiple point mutants. J. Mol. Biol. 369, 985–1000 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Grande-Perez, A., Lazaro, E., Lowenstein, P., Domingo, E. & Manrubia, S. C. Suppression of viral infectivity through lethal defection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 4448–4452 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cattaneo, R. et al. Biased hypermutation and other genetic changes in defective measles viruses in human brain infections. Cell 55, 255–265 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yu, Q. et al. Single-strand specificity of APOBEC3G accounts for minus-strand deamination of the HIV genome. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11, 435–442 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Imamichi, H. et al. Defective HIV-1 proviruses produce novel protein-coding RNA species in HIV-infected patients on combination antiretroviral therapy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8783–8788 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ho, Y. C. et al. Replication-competent noninduced proviruses in the latent reservoir increase barrier to HIV-1 cure. Cell 155, 540–551 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Nomoto, A., Jacobson, A., Lee, Y. F., Dunn, J. & Wimmer, E. Defective interfering particles of poliovirus: mapping of the deletion and evidence that the deletions in the genomes of DI(1), (2) and (3) are located in the same region. J. Mol. Biol. 128, 179–196 (1979).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Perrault, J. & Semler, B. L. Internal genome deletions in two distinct classes of defective interfering particles of vesicular stomatitis virus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 76, 6191–6195 (1979).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Davis, A. R., Hiti, A. L. & Nayak, D. P. Influenza defective interfering viral RNA is formed by internal deletion of genomic RNA. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 77, 215–219 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    O’Hara, P. J., Nichol, S. T., Horodyski, F. M. & Holland, J. J. Vesicular stomatitis virus defective interfering particles can contain extensive genomic sequence rearrangements and base substitutions. Cell 36, 915–924 (1984).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hillman, B. I., Carrington, J. C. & Morris, T. J. A defective interfering RNA that contains a mosaic of a plant virus genome. Cell 51, 427–433 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Molenkamp, R., Rozier, B. C., Greve, S., Spaan, W. J. & Snijder, E. J. Isolation and characterization of an arterivirus defective interfering RNA genome. J. Virol. 74, 3156–3165 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kolakofsky, D. Isolation and characterization of Sendai virus DI-RNAs. Cell 8, 547–555 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Lazzarini, R. A., Keene, J. D. & Schubert, M. The origins of defective interfering particles of the negative-strand RNA viruses. Cell 26, 145–154 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Nichol, S. T., O’Hara, P. J., Holland, J. J. & Perrault, J. Structure and origin of a novel class of defective interfering particle of vesicular stomatitis virus. Nucleic Acids Res. 12, 2775–2790 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Perrault, J. & Leavitt, R. W. Inverted complementary terminal sequences in single-stranded RNAs and snap-back RNAs from vesicular stomatitis defective interfering particles. J. Gen. Virol. 38, 35–50 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Re, G. G., Gupta, K. C. & Kingsbury, D. W. Genomic and copy-back 3′ termini in Sendai virus defective interfering RNA species. J. Virol. 45, 659–664 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Perrault, J. Origin and replication of defective interfering particles. Curr. Top. Microbiol. 93, 151–207 (1981).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Barrett, A. D., Crouch, C. F. & Dimmock, N. J. Defective interfering Semliki Forest virus populations are biologically and physically heterogeneous. J. Gen. Virol. 65, 1273–1283 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Jaworski, E. & Routh, A. Parallel ClickSeq and Nanopore sequencing elucidates the rapid evolution of defective-interfering RNAs in Flock House virus. PLoS Pathog. 13, e1006365 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Beauclair, G. et al. DI-tector: defective interfering viral genomes detector for next generation sequencing data. RNA 24, 1285–1296 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Sun, Y. et al. A specific sequence in the genome of respiratory syncytial virus regulates the generation of copy-back defective viral genomes. PLoS Pathog. 15, e1007707 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Saira, K. et al. Sequence analysis of in vivo defective interfering-like RNA of influenza A H1N1 pandemic virus. J. Virol. 87, 8064–8074 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    van den Hoogen, B. G. et al. Excessive production and extreme editing of human metapneumovirus defective interfering RNA is associated with type I IFN induction. J. Gen. Virol. 95, 1625–1633 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Pfaller, C. K. et al. Measles virus defective interfering RNAs are generated frequently and early in the absence of C protein and pan be destabilized by adenosine deaminase acting on RNA-1-like hypermutations. J. Virol. 89, 7735–7747 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Tapia, K. et al. Defective viral genomes arising in vivo provide critical danger signals for the triggering of lung antiviral immunity. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003703 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Sun, Y. et al. Immunostimulatory defective viral genomes from respiratory syncytial virus promote a strong innate antiviral response during Infection in mice and humans. PLoS Pathog. 11, e1005122 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sanchez-Aparicio, M. T. et al. Loss of Sendai virus C protein leads to accumulation of RIG-I immunostimulatory defective interfering RNA. J. Gen. Virol. 98, 1282–1293 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Killip, M. J. et al. Deep sequencing analysis of defective genomes of parainfluenza virus 5 and their role in interferon induction. J. Virol. 87, 4798–4807 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Timm, C., Akpinar, F. & Yin, J. Quantitative characterization of defective virus emergence by deep sequencing. J. Virol. 88, 2623–2632 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Jennings, P. A., Finch, J. T., Winter, G. & Robertson, J. S. Does the higher order structure of the influenza virus ribonucleoprotein guide sequence rearrangements in influenza viral RNA? Cell 34, 619–627 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Van Slyke, G. A. et al. Sequence-specific fidelity alterations associated with West Nile virus attenuation in mosquitoes. PLoS Pathog. 11, e1005009 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rozen-Gagnon, K. et al. Alphavirus mutator variants present host-specific defects and attenuation in mammalian and insect models. PLoS Pathog. 10, e1003877 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Vasilijevic, J. et al. Reduced accumulation of defective viral genomes contributes to severe outcome in influenza virus infected patients. PLoS Pathog. 13, e1006650 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Poirier, E. Z. et al. Low-Fidelity Polymerases of Alphaviruses Recombine at Higher Rates To Overproduce Defective Interfering Particles. J. Virol. 90, 2446–2454 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Fodor, E., Mingay, L. J., Crow, M., Deng, T. & Brownlee, G. G. A single amino acid mutation in the PA subunit of the influenza virus RNA polymerase promotes the generation of defective interfering RNAs. J. Virol. 77, 5017–5020 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Panaviene, Z. & Nagy, P. D. Mutations in the RNA-binding domains of tombusvirus replicase proteins affect RNA recombination in vivo. Virology 317, 359–372 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Odagiri, T. & Tobita, K. Mutation in NS2, a nonstructural protein of influenza A virus, extragenically causes aberrant replication and expression of the PA gene and leads to generation of defective interfering particles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 5988–5992 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Yoshida, A. et al. A single amino acid substitution within the paramyxovirus Sendai virus nucleoprotein is a critical determinant for production of interferon-beta-inducing copyback-type defective interfering genomes. J. Virol. 92, e02094-17 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Ziegler, C. M. et al. The lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus matrix protein PPXY late domain drives the production of defective interfering particles. PLoS Pathog. 12, e1005501 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    White, K. A., Morris, T. J. & Nonhomologous, R. N. A. recombination in tombusviruses: generation and evolution of defective interfering RNAs by stepwise deletions. J. Virol. 68, 14–24 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Kim, M. J. & Kao, C. Factors regulating template switch in vitro by viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases: implications for RNA-RNA recombination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 4972–4977 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Wierzchoslawski, R. & Bujarski, J. J. Efficient in vitro system of homologous recombination in brome mosaic bromovirus. J. Virol. 80, 6182–6187 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Jaag, H. M. & Nagy, P. D. Silencing of Nicotiana benthamiana Xrn4p exoribonuclease promotes tombusvirus RNA accumulation and recombination. Virology 386, 344–352 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ward, S. V., Sternsdorf, T. & Woods, N. B. Targeting expression of the leukemogenic PML-RARalpha fusion protein by lentiviral vector-mediated small interfering RNA results in leukemic cell differentiation and apoptosis. Hum. Gene Ther. 22, 1593–1598 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Calain, P., Monroe, M. C. & Nichol, S. T. Ebola virus defective interfering particles and persistent infection. Virology 262, 114–128 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Li, D. et al. Defective interfering viral particles in acute dengue infections. PLoS ONE 6, e19447 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Calain, P. & Roux, L. Generation of measles virus defective interfering particles and their presence in a preparation of attenuated live-virus vaccine. J. Virol. 62, 2859–2866 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Roux, L., Simon, A. E. & Holland, J. J. Effects of defective interfering viruses on virus replication and pathogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Adv. Virus Res. 40, 181–211 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Treuhaft, M. W. & Beem, M. O. Defective interfering particles of respiratory syncytial virus. Infect. Immun. 37, 439–444 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Wiktor, T. J., Dietzschold, B., Leamnson, R. N. & Koprowski, H. Induction and biological properties of defective interfering particles of rabies virus. J. Virol. 21, 626–635 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Huang, A. S. & Wagner, R. R. Defective T particles of vesicular stomatitis virus. II. Biologic role in homologous interference. Virology 30, 173–181 (1966).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Sekellick, M. J. & Marcus, P. I. Viral interference by defective particles of vesicular stomatitis virus measured in individual cells. Virology 104, 247–252 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Brinton, M. A. Analysis of extracellular West Nile virus particles produced by cell cultures from genetically resistant and susceptible mice indicates enhanced amplification of defective interfering particles by resistant cultures. J. Virol. 46, 860–870 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Li, T. & Pattnaik, A. K. Replication signals in the genome of vesicular stomatitis virus and its defective interfering particles: identification of a sequence element that enhances DI RNA replication. Virology 232, 248–259 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Calain, P. & Roux, L. Functional characterisation of the genomic and antigenomic promoters of Sendai virus. Virology 212, 163–173 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Portner, A. & Kingsbury, D. W. Homologous interference by incomplete Sendai virus particles: changes in virus-specific ribonucleic acid synthesis. J. Virol. 8, 388–394 (1971).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Genoyer, E. & Lopez, C. B. Defective viral genomes alter how Sendai virus interacts with cellular trafficking machinery leading to heterogeneity in the production of viral particles among infected cells. J. Virol. 93, e01579-18 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Xu, J. et al. Replication defective viral genomes exploit a cellular pro-survival mechanism to establish paramyxovirus persistence. Nat. Commun. 8, 7996 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Yount, J. S., Gitlin, L., Moran, T. M. & Lopez, C. B. MDA5 participates in the detection of paramyxovirus infection and is essential for the early activation of dendritic cells in response to Sendai virus defective interfering particles. J. Immunol. 180, 4910–4918 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Strahle, L., Garcin, D. & Kolakofsky, D. Sendai virus defective-interfering genomes and the activation of interferon-beta. Virology 351, 101–111 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Shivakoti, R., Siwek, M., Hauer, D., Schultz, K. L. & Griffin, D. E. Induction of dendritic cell production of type I and type III interferons by wild-type and vaccine strains of measles virus: role of defective interfering RNAs. J. Virol. 87, 7816–7827 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Mercado-Lopez, X. et al. Highly immunostimulatory RNA derived from a Sendai virus defective viral genome. Vaccine 31, 5713–5721 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Yount, J. S., Kraus, T. A., Horvath, C. M., Moran, T. M. & Lopez, C. B. A novel role for viral-defective interfering particles in enhancing dendritic cell maturation. J. Immunol. 177, 4503–4513 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Barrett, A. D. & Dimmock, N. J. Modulation of a systemic Semliki Forest virus infection in mice by defective interfering virus. J. Gen. Virol. 65, 1827–1831 (1984).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Xu, J. et al. Identification of a natural viral RNA motif that optimizes sensing of viral RNA by RIG.-I. mBio 6, e01265-15 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Strahle, L. et al. Activation of the beta interferon promoter by unnatural Sendai virus infection requires RIG-I and is inhibited by viral C proteins. J. Virol. 81, 12227–12237 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Ho, T. H. et al. PACT- and RIG-I-dependent activation of Type I interferon production by a defective interfering RNA derived from measles virus vaccine. J. Virol. 90, 1557–1568 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Baum, A., Sachidanandam, R. & Garcia-Sastre, A. Preference of RIG-I for short viral RNA molecules in infected cells revealed by next-generation sequencing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16303–16308 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Lopez, C. B. et al. TLR-independent induction of dendritic cell maturation and adaptive immunity by negative-strand RNA viruses. J. Immunol. 173, 6882–6889 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Runge, S. et al. In vivo ligands of MDA5 and RIG-I in measles virus-infected cells. PLoS Pathog. 10, e1004081 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Mura, M. et al. Nonencapsidated 5′ Copy-Back Defective Interfering Genomes Produced by Recombinant Measles Viruses Are Recognized by RIG-I and LGP2 but Not MDA5. J. Virol. 91, e00643-17 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Patel, J. R. et al. ATPase-driven oligomerization of RIG-I on RNA allows optimal activation of type-I interferon. EMBO Rep. 14, 780–787 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Weber, F., Wagner, V., Rasmussen, S. B., Hartmann, R. & Paludan, S. R. Double-stranded RNA is produced by positive-strand RNA viruses and DNA viruses but not in detectable amounts by negative-strand RNA viruses. J. Virol. 80, 5059–5064 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Poirier, E. Z. et al. Dicer-2-dependent generation of viral DNA from defective genomes of RNA viruses modulates antiviral immunity in insects. Cell Host Microbe 23, 353–365 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Roux, L. & Holland, J. J. Role of defective interfering particles of Sendai virus in persistent infections. Virology 93, 91–103 (1979).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Andzhaparidze, O. G., Bogomolova, N. N., Boriskin, Y. S., Bektemirova, M. S. & Drynov, I. D. Comparative study of rabies virus persistence in human and hamster cell lines. J. Virol. 37, 1–6 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Barrett, A. D. et al. Subclinical infections in mice resulting from the modulation of a lethal dose of Semliki Forest virus with defective interfering viruses: neurochemical abnormalities in the central nervous system. J. Gen. Virol. 67, 1727–1732 (1986).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Bangham, C. R. & Kirkwood, T. B. Defective interfering particles: effects in modulating virus growth and persistence. Virology 179, 821–826 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Atkinson, T., Barrett, A. D., Mackenzie, A. & Dimmock, N. J. Persistence of virulent Semliki Forest virus in mouse brain following co-inoculation with defective interfering particles. J. Gen. Virol. 67, 1189–1194 (1986).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Cave, D. R., Hendrickson, F. M. & Huang, A. S. Defective interfering virus particles modulate virulence. J. Virol. 55, 366–373 (1985).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Frensing, T. et al. Continuous influenza virus production in cell culture shows a periodic accumulation of defective interfering particles. PLoS ONE 8, e72288 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Stauffer Thompson, K. A., Rempala, G. A. & Yin, J. Multiple-hit inhibition of infection by defective interfering particles. J. Gen. Virol. 90, 888–899 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Moscona, A. Defective interfering particles of human parainfluenza virus type 3 are associated with persistent infection in cell culture. Virology 183, 821–824 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Dimmock, N. J. & Easton, A. J. Defective interfering influenza virus RNAs: time to reevaluate their clinical potential as broad-spectrum antivirals? J. Virol. 88, 5217–5227 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Vasou, A., Sultanoglu, N., Goodbourn, S., Randall, R. E. & Kostrikis, L. G. Targeting pattern recognition receptors (PRR) for vaccine adjuvantation: from synthetic PRR agonists to the potential of defective interfering particles of viruses. Viruses 9, 186 (2017).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Santak, M. et al. Accumulation of defective interfering viral particles in only a few passages in Vero cells attenuates mumps virus neurovirulence. Microbes Infect. 17, 228–236 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Dimmock, N. J. & Marriott, A. C. In vivo antiviral activity: defective interfering virus protects better against virulent Influenza A virus than avirulent virus. J. Gen. Virol. 87, 1259–1265 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Mann, A. et al. Interfering vaccine (defective interfering influenza A virus) protects ferrets from influenza, and allows them to develop solid immunity to reinfection. Vaccine 24, 4290–4296 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Notton, T., Sardanyes, J., Weinberger, A. D. & Weinberger, L. S. The case for transmissible antivirals to control population-wide infectious disease. Trends Biotechnol. 32, 400–405 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Rast, L. I. et al. Conflicting selection pressures will constrain viral escape from interfering particles: principles for designing resistance-proof antivirals. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004799 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Martinez-Gil, L. et al. A Sendai virus-derived RNA agonist of RIG-I as a virus vaccine adjuvant. J. Virol. 87, 1290–1300 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Fisher, D. G., Coppock, G. M. & Lopez, C. B. Virus-derived immunostimulatory RNA induces type I IFN-dependent antibodies and T-cell responses during vaccination. Vaccine 36, 4039–4045 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Easton, A. J. et al. A novel broad-spectrum treatment for respiratory virus infections: influenza-based defective interfering virus provides protection against pneumovirus infection in vivo. Vaccine 29, 2777–2784 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Bellocq, C., Mottet, G. & Roux, L. Wide occurrence of measles virus subgenomic RNAs in attenuated live-virus vaccines. Biologicals 18, 337–343 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    McLaren, L. C. & Holland, J. J. Defective interfering particles from poliovirus vaccine and vaccine reference strains. Virology 60, 579–583 (1974).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Xue, J., Chambers, B. S., Hensley, S. E. & Lopez, C. B. Propagation and characterization of influenza virus stocks that lack high levels of defective viral genomes and hemagglutinin mutations. Front. Microbiol. 7, 326 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Gould, P. S., Easton, A. J. & Dimmock, N. J. Live attenuated influenza vaccine contains substantial and unexpected amounts of defective viral genomic RNA. Viruses 9, 269 (2017).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    McCrone, J. T. et al. Stochastic processes constrain the within and between host evolution of influenza virus. eLife 7, e35962 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Loney, C., Mottet-Osman, G., Roux, L. & Bhella, D. Paramyxovirus ultrastructure and genome packaging: cryo-electron tomography of sendai virus. J. Virol. 83, 8191–8197 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Cuevas, J. M., Duran-Moreno, M. & Sanjuan, R. Multi-virion infectious units arise from free viral particles in an enveloped virus. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17078 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Aguilera, E. R., Erickson, A. K., Jesudhasan, P. R., Robinson, C. M. & Pfeiffer, J. K. Plaques formed by mutagenized viral populations have elevated coinfection frequencies. mBio 8, e02020-16 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Laske, T., Heldt, F. S., Hoffmann, H., Frensing, T. & Reichl, U. Modeling the intracellular replication of influenza A virus in the presence of defective interfering RNAs. Virus Res. 213, 90–99 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Rouzine, I. M. & Weinberger, L. S. Design requirements for interfering particles to maintain coadaptive stability with HIV-1. J. Virol. 87, 2081–2093 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Li, Q., Tong, Y., Xu, Y., Niu, J. & Zhong, J. Genetic analysis of serum-derived defective Hepatitis C virus genomes revealed novel viral cis elements for virus replication and assembly. J. Virol. 92, e02182-17 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Xiao, C. T. et al. Identification of new defective interfering RNA species associated with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. Virus Res. 158, 33–36 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Mawassi, M. et al. Multiple species of defective RNAs in plants infected with citrus tristeza virus. Virology 214, 264–268 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Che, X., Mawassi, M. & Bar-Joseph, M. A novel class of large and infectious defective RNAs of Citrus tristeza virus. Virology 298, 133–145 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Snijder, E. J., den Boon, J. A., Horzinek, M. C. & Spaan, W. J. Characterization of defective interfering RNAs of Berne virus. J. Gen. Virol. 72, 1635–1643 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Hofmann, M. A., Sethna, P. B. & Brian, D. A. Bovine coronavirus mRNA replication continues throughout persistent infection in cell culture. J. Virol. 64, 4108–4114 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Penzes, Z., Wroe, C., Brown, T. D., Britton, P. & Cavanagh, D. Replication and packaging of coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus defective RNAs lacking a long open reading frame. J. Virol. 70, 8660–8668 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Makino, S., Yokomori, K. & Lai, M. M. Analysis of efficiently packaged defective interfering RNAs of murine coronavirus: localization of a possible RNA-packaging signal. J. Virol. 64, 6045–6053 (1990).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    van der Most, R. G., Bredenbeek, P. J. & Spaan, W. J. A domain at the 3′ end of the polymerase gene is essential for encapsidation of coronavirus defective interfering RNAs. J. Virol. 65, 3219–3226 (1991).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Mendez, A., Smerdou, C., Izeta, A., Gebauer, F. & Enjuanes, L. Molecular characterization of transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus defective interfering genomes: packaging and heterogeneity. Virology 217, 495–507 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Aaskov, J., Buzacott, K., Thu, H. M., Lowry, K. & Holmes, E. C. Long-term transmission of defective RNA viruses in humans and Aedes mosquitoes. Science 311, 236–238 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Juarez-Martinez, A. B. et al. Detection and sequencing of defective viral genomes in C6/36 cells persistently infected with dengue virus 2. Arch. Virol. 158, 583–599 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Yoon, S. W. et al. Characterization of homologous defective interfering RNA during persistent infection of Vero cells with Japanese encephalitis virus. Mol. Cells 21, 112–120 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Noppornpanth, S. et al. Characterization of Hepatitis C virus deletion mutants circulating in chronically infected patients. J. Virol. 81, 7 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Pacini, L., Graziani, R., Bartholomew, L., De Francesco, R. & Paonessa, G. Naturally occurring Hepatitis C virus subgenomic deletion mutants replicate efficiently in huh-7 Cells and are trans-packaged in vitro to generate infectious defective particles. J. Virol. 83, 14 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Lancaster, M. U., Hodgetts, S. I., Mackenzie, J. S. & Urosevic, N. Characterization of defective viral RNA produced during persistent infection of Vero cells with Murray Valley encephalitis virus. J. Virol. 72, 2474–2482 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Mandl, C. W. et al. Spontaneous and engineered deletions in the 3′ noncoding region of tick-borne encephalitis virus: construction of highly attenuated mutants of a flavivirus. J. Virol. 72, 2132–2140 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Brinton, M. A. Characterization of West Nile virus persistent infections in genetically resistant and susceptible mouse cells. I. Generation of defective nonplaquing virus particles. Virology 116, 84–98 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Hasiow-Jaroszewska, B., Minicka, J., Zarzynska-Nowak, A., Budzynska, D. & Elena, S. F. Defective RNA particles derived from Tomato black ring virus genome interfere with the replication of parental virus. Virus Res. 250, 87–94 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Radloff, R. J. & Young, S. A. Defective interfering particles of encephalomyocarditis virus. J. Gen. Virol. 64, 1637–1641 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Garcia-Arriaza, J., Domingo, E. & Escarmis, C. A segmented form of foot-and-mouth disease virus interferes with standard virus: a link between interference and competitive fitness. Virology 335, 155–164 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    McClure, M. A., Holland, J. J. & Perrault, J. Generation of defective interfering particles in picornaviruses. Virology 100, 408–418 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Lundquist, R. E., Sullivan, M. & Maizel, J. V. Jr. Characterization of a new isolate of poliovirus defective interfering particles. Cell 18, 759–769 (1979).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Derdeyn, C. A. & Frey, T. K. Characterization of defective-interfering RNAs of rubella virus generated during serial undiluted passage. Virology 206, 216–226 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Dimmock, N. J. & Kennedy, S. I. Prevention of death in Semliki Forest virus-infected mice by administration of defective-interfering Semliki Forest virus. J. Gen. Virol. 39, 231–242 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Barrett, A. D. & Dimmock, N. J. Properties of host and virus which influence defective interfering virus mediated-protection of mice against Semliki Forest virus lethal encephalitis. Brief report. Arch. Virol. 81, 185–188 (1984).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Fuller, F. J. & Marcus, P. I. Interferon induction by viruses. Sindbis virus: defective-interfering particles temperature-sensitive for interferon induction. J. Gen. Virol. 48, 391–394 (1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Finnen, R. L. & Rochon, D. M. Sequence and structure of defective interfering RNAs associated with cucumber necrosis virus infections. J. Gen. Virol. 74, 1715–1720 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Li, X. H., Heaton, L. A., Morris, T. J. & Simon, A. E. Turnip crinkle virus defective interfering RNAs intensify viral symptoms and are generated de novo. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 9173–9177 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Welsh, R. M., O’Connell, C. M. & Pfau, C. J. Properties of defective lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus. J. Gen. Virol. 17, 355–359 (1972).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Meyer, B. J. & Southern, P. J. A novel type of defective viral genome suggests a unique strategy to establish and maintain persistent lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infections. J. Virol. 71, 6757–6764 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Isaacs, A. & Edney, M. Interference between inactive and active influenza viruses in the chick embryo. II. The site of interference. Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. 28, 231–238 (1950).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Ada, G. L. & Perry, B. T. Influenza virus nucleic acid: relationship between biological characteristics of the virus particle and properties of the nucleic acid. J. Gen. Microbiol. 14, 623–633 (1956).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Chanda, P. K., Chambers, T. M. & Nayak, D. P. In vitro transcription of defective interfering particles of influenza virus produces polyadenylic acid-containing complementary RNAs. J. Virol. 45, 55–61 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Bean, W. J., Kawaoka, Y., Wood, J. M., Pearson, J. E. & Webster, R. G. Characterization of virulent and avirulent A/chicken/Pennsylvania/83 influenza A viruses: potential role of defective interfering RNAs in nature. J. Virol. 54, 151–160 (1985).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Chambers, T. M. & Webster, R. G. Defective interfering virus associated with A/Chicken/Pennsylvania/83 influenza virus. J. Virol. 61, 1517–1523 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Morgan, D. J. & Dimmock, N. J. Defective interfering influenza virus inhibits immunopathological effects of infectious virus in the mouse. J. Virol. 66, 1188–1192 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Scott, P. D., Meng, B., Marriott, A. C., Easton, A. J. & Dimmock, N. J. Defective interfering influenza virus confers only short-lived protection against influenza virus disease: evidence for a role for adaptive immunity in DI virus-mediated protection in vivo. Vaccine 29, 6584–6591 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Murphy, D. G., Dimock, K. & Kang, C. Y. Defective interfering particles of human parainfluenza virus 3. Virology 158, 439–443 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Sidhu, M. S. et al. Defective measles virus in human subacute sclerosing panencephalitis brain. Virology 202, 10 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Whistler, T., Bellini, W. J. & Rota, P. A. Generation of defective interfering particles by two vaccine strains of measles virus. Virology 220, 480–484 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Andzhaparidze, O. G., Boriskin, Yu,S., Bogomolova, N. N. & Drynov, I. D. Mumps virus-persistently infected cell cultures release defective interfering virus particles. J. Gen. Virol. 63, 499–503 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Portner, A. & Kingsbury, D. W. Identification of transcriptive and replicative intermediates in Sendai virus-infected cells. Virology 47, 711–725 (1972).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Calain, P., Curran, J., Kolakofsky, D. & Roux, L. Molecular cloning of natural paramyxovirus copy-back defective interfering RNAs and their expression from DNA. Virology 191, 62–71 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Patel, A. H. & Elliott, R. M. Characterization of Bunyamwera virus defective interfering particles. J. Gen. Virol. 73, 389–396 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Marchi, A., Nicoletti, L., Accardi, L., Di Bonito, P. & Giorgi, C. Characterization of Toscana virus-defective interfering particles generated in vivo. Virology 246, 125–133 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Sarmiento, R. E., Tirado, R. & Gomez, B. Characteristics of a respiratory syncytial virus persistently infected macrophage-like culture. Virus Res. 84, 45–58 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Cooper, P. D. & Bellett, A. J. A transmissible interfering component of vesicular stomatitis virus preparations. J. Gen. Microbiol. 21, 485–497 (1959).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Palma, E. L. & Huang, A. Cyclic production of vesicular stomatitis virus caused by defective interfering particles. J. Infect. Dis. 129, 402–410 (1974).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    Schubert, M., Keene, J. D., Lazzarini, R. A. & Emerson, S. U. The complete sequence of a unique RNA species synthesized by a DI particle of VSV. Cell 15, 103–112 (1978).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    Rao, D. D. & Huang, A. S. Interference among defective interfering particles of vesicular stomatitis virus. J. Virol. 41, 210–221 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    DePolo, N. J. & Holland, J. J. Very rapid generation/amplification of defective interfering particles by vesicular stomatitis virus variants isolated from persistent infection. J. Gen. Virol. 67, 1195–1198 (1986).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Marcus, P. I. & Gaccione, C. Interferon induction by viruses. XIX. Vesicular stomatitis virus—New Jersey: high multiplicity passages generate interferon-inducing, defective-interfering particles. Virology 171, 630–633 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Resende Rde, O. et al. Generation of envelope and defective interfering RNA mutants of tomato spotted wilt virus by mechanical passage. J. Gen. Virol. 72, 2375–2383 (1991).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Chiba, S., Lin, Y. H., Kondo, H., Kanematsu, S. & Suzuki, N. A novel betapartitivirus RnPV6 from Rosellinia necatrix tolerates host RNA silencing but is interfered by its defective RNAs. Virus Res. 219, 62–72 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. 188.

    Nonoyama, M., Watanabe, Y. & Graham, A. F. Defective virions of reovirus. J. Virol. 6, 226–236 (1970).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Anzola, J. V., Xu, Z. K., Asamizu, T. & Nuss, D. L. Segment-specific inverted repeats found adjacent to conserved terminal sequences in wound tumor virus genome and defective interfering RNAs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 84, 8301–8305 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Bruner, K. M. et al. Defective proviruses rapidly accumulate during acute HIV-1 infection. Nat. Med. 22, 1043–1049 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  191. 191.

    Sanchez, G., Xu, X., Chermann, J. C. & Hirsch, I. Accumulation of defective viral genomes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected individuals. J. Virol. 71, 2233–2240 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    Palukaitis, P. Satellite RNAs and satellite viruses. Mol. Plant Microbe 29, 181–186 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Simon, A. E., Roossinck, M. J. & Havelda, Z. Plant virus satellite and defective interfering RNAs: new paradigms for a new century. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 42, 415–437 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Sivanandam, V., Mathews, D. & Rao, A. L. Properties of satellite tobacco mosaic virus phenotypes expressed in the presence and absence of helper virus. Virology 483, 163–173 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Krupovic, M., Kuhn, J. H. & Fischer, M. G. A classification system for virophages and satellite viruses. Arch. Virol. 161, 233–247 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    Rao, A. L. & Kalantidis, K. Virus-associated small satellite RNAs and viroids display similarities in their replication strategies. Virology 479–480, 627–636 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Palukaitis, P. What has been happening with viroids? Virus Genes 49, 175–184 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    Bekliz, M., Colson, P. & La Scola, B. The expanding family of virophages. Viruses 8, 317 (2016).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    La Scola, B. et al. The virophage as a unique parasite of the giant mimivirus. Nature 455, 100–104 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Roux, S. et al. Ecogenomics of virophages and their giant virus hosts assessed through time series metagenomics. Nat. Commun. 8, 858 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    Born, D. et al. Capsid protein structure, self-assembly, and processing reveal morphogenesis of the marine virophage mavirus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7332–7337 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Gong, D. et al. Virus-Like Vesicles of Kaposi’s Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus Activate Lytic Replication by Triggering Differentiation Signaling. J. Virol. 91, e00362-17 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. 203.

    Gastaminza, P. et al. Ultrastructural and biophysical characterization of hepatitis C virus particles produced in cell culture. J. Virol. 84, 10999–11009 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Deschamps, T. & Kalamvoki, M. Extracellular vesicles released by herpes simplex virus 1 infected cells block virus replication in recipient cells in a STING-dependent manner. J. Virol. 92, e01102-18 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grants nos. NIH AI083284, AI137062 and AI134862 to C.B.L.) and the DARPA INTERCEPT program (to M.V.) managed by J. Gimlett and administered though DARPA Cooperative Agreement (grant no. HR0011-17-2-0023). In addition, this work was supported by a Fulbright US Scholar award to C.B.L. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the position or the policy of the US government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolina B. López.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vignuzzi, M., López, C.B. Defective viral genomes are key drivers of the virus–host interaction. Nat Microbiol 4, 1075–1087 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0465-y

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing