Attachments: Jones2007draft 2.pdf; MS680Fig2.doc

Dear Dr. Binn,

Many thanks for taking the time to note me about this mistake.

Briefly:
*HAdV-11* and 14 are in cluster *B2, *as you suspected*.*

A bit more:

Actually, the present official taxonomy does not contain subspecies taxons in the family of Adenoviridae, i.e., there is no official B1 and

B2 subspecies or as called earlier, subgroup. However, it is correct that human adenoviruses in species (earlier group) Human adenovirus B could be separated into two characteristic clusters, and they were named subgroup B1 and B2. HAdV-11 was described as member of B2. And your point of its characteristic biology is absolutely correct.

Eventually, this distinction could be tried to be made official at the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses but every step in this committee takes a lot of time. And some newer types would not be easy to place to B1 or B2. Regardless, somebody should study again all the known Human adenovirus B members (including the newly found ape adenoviruses belonging here) and try to make a correct separations of all these serotypes into two (or more) subspecies if it is logical. The most important fact to be taken into consideration would be that of phylogeny. I attach an accepted manuscript about the newest human adenovirus type described (HAdV-52). Fig 4 shows three phylogenetic trees based on three different genes. A further attached figure shows more HAdVs, this time the tree is based on hexon. HAdV-16 is not shown in the latter one as it has a homologous recombination in the hexon thus it would not show a correct result. All of these trees suggest HAdV-11 to be close relative of HAdV-14, 34, and 35. Historically, these four HAdVs are called B2. A further important characteristic would be the number of VA genes. HAdV-3, 7, 16, 21, and 50 have two VA genes, while HAdV-11, 14, 34, and 35 have only one. The specific pathogenic difference was mentioned by you. Unfortunately, the B1 candidates, those with 2 VAs are not always monophyletic on the different phylogenetic trees, not to mention simian adenovirus 21, thus it is a bit hard to prove a need to establish a HAdV-B2 subspecies on the official taxonomy level. Regardless of this, the B2 cluster is safe and sound with HAdV-11 in it, and the biological differences among the HAdVs give a good basis for such a distinction.

Then why is HAdV-11 mentioned in IDTVdB as member of B1? I checked my earlier correspondance with Cornelia who had been very kind to ask also my opinion many years ago. At that time, first, I tried to establish officially the B1 and B2 clusters in the renewed adenovirus taxonomy, and I numbered the HAdV-B members accordingly. However, later ICTV was not agreeing with such naming, so I dropped the idea, and planned to try to establish these clusters as subspecies only later once the species has been already officially accepted. In my letters of 1999 and in September of 2000, I have sent Cornelia a list that shows HAdV-11 as a

B2 member. However, as I realize now, she sent back me a list in December of 2000, that was already in a table in her special form and it shows already HAdV-11 incorrectly as member of B1 (and renumbered accordingly). Most probably a typing mistake occurred when they entered it. However, it is also my mistake that I have not noticed it. As ICTVdB is not the official list (and furthermore there is no official B1 and B2

anyway) I was not checking it later. As it turns out it was a mistake.

But I can see now that there are further problems with the ICTVdB. It still shows many data from the earlier ICTV report published in 2000 that is quite obsolete by now. Maybe I should try to get again a contact with ICTVdB and correct the mistakes. I made more effort to correct the mistakes in GenBank but even that was not fully successful. (There again you do not see B1 and B2). However, the most recent data may be found on our web pages:

http://www.vmri.hu/~harrach/ADENOSEQ.HTM

http://www.vmri.hu/~harrach/AdVtaxlong.htm

History of the adenovirus taxonomy can be found on http://www.vmri.hu/~harrach/Taxonomy.htm

I hope I could be of help and sorry for not seeing this database mistake earlier. If you have any further question, please, just write me.

Thanks again for detecting this problem. Best regards,

Balazs Harrach

Binn, Leonard N Dr. WRAIR-Wash DC írta:

> Dr. Harrach: Dr. Buchen-Osmond suggested contacting you in regard to

> a question about the classification of human adenovirus B subgroups.

> The ICTVdB listed type 11 as a B1 member but several other sources

> describe the virus as B2 (see Virology 309:152-165, 2003 and J Gen

> Virology 84:2061, 2003). For purposes of a paper I am reviewing, I

> would appreciate information on the sub classification of the human B

> subgroups especially for types 11 and 14. Thank you.

> Leonard N. Binn, PhD

> Division of Virus Diseases

> Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

> Silver Spring, MD

>

>