4.4 Article

Dengue is still an imported disease in China: A case study in Guangzhou

Journal

INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 178-190

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.03.005

Keywords

Dengue; Phylogenetic and phylogeographic analysis; Imported; China

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB955504]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81273139]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dengue virus and its four serotypes (DENV 1-4) infect approximately 390 million people worldwide each year, with most cases in tropical and subtropical regions. Because of repeated introduction of DENV from epidemic regions and suitable weather conditions, many regions have shifted from hypo-endemicity to hyper-endemicity over recent decades. Since the first dengue outbreak in 1978, it is crucial to understand the current situation in China over nearly 40 years. The purpose of the study was to examine whether dengue in China was endemic or not, which is essential for relevant dengue control and prevention strategy implementation in China. The study, combining epidemiological characteristics of dengue from the disease notification system, phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses, showed that all four serotypes had been detected in Guangzhou, China, which was dominated by DENV 1-2. The Maximum Likelihood tree analytic results showed that the virus detected in Guangzhou localized in different clades, except of virus of 2002 and 2003 clustered together. There existed the mutual introductions between Guangzhou and Southeast Asia. Most of the viruses were imported from Southeast Asia and the sources of outbreaks in Guangzhou mainly originated from Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The study indicates that dengue in China still remains as an imported disease, with the possibility of localization. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available