Discovery of Novel Viruses Associated With the Invasive Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) in Its Native and Introduced Ranges

Cane toads ( Rhinella marina ) are notoriously successful invaders: from 101 individuals brought to Australia in 1935, poisonous toads now cover an area >1.2 million km 2 with adverse effects on native fauna. Despite extensive research on the role of macroparasites in cane toad invasion, viral re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in microbiology Vol. 12; p. 733631
Main Authors Russo, Alice G., Harding, Emma F., Yan, Grace J. H., Selechnik, Daniel, Ducatez, Simon, DeVore, Jayna L., Zhou, Jia, Sarma, Roshmi R., Lee, Yin Peng, Richardson, Mark F., Shine, Richard, Rollins, Lee A., White, Peter A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Frontiers Media S.A 06.09.2021
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Cane toads ( Rhinella marina ) are notoriously successful invaders: from 101 individuals brought to Australia in 1935, poisonous toads now cover an area >1.2 million km 2 with adverse effects on native fauna. Despite extensive research on the role of macroparasites in cane toad invasion, viral research is lagging. We compared viral prevalence and diversity between toads in their native range (French Guiana, n =25) and two introduced ranges: Australia ( n =151) and Hawai’i ( n =10) with a metatranscriptomic and metagenomic approach combined with PCR screening. Australian toads almost exclusively harbor one of seven viruses detected globally. Rhimavirus-A ( Picornaviridae ) exhibited low genetic diversity and likely actively infected 9% of sampled Australian toads extending across ~2,000km of Northern Australia and up to the current invasion front. In native range cane toads, we identified multiple phylogenetically distinct viruses ( Iridoviridae , Picornaviridae , Papillomaviridae , and Nackedna-like virus). None of the same viruses was detected in both ranges, suggesting that Australian cane toads have largely escaped the viral infection experienced by their native range counterparts. The novel native range viruses described here are potential biocontrol agents, as Australian toads likely lack prior immunological exposure to these viruses. Overall, our evidence suggests that there may be differences between viruses infecting cane toads in their native vs. introduced ranges, which lays the groundwork for further studies on how these viruses have influenced the toads’ invasion history.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
This article was submitted to Virology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Reviewed by: Gideon Mordecai, University of British Columbia, Canada; Christoph Deeg, University of British Columbia, Canada
Edited by: Andrew S. Lang, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
ISSN:1664-302X
1664-302X
DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2021.733631