4.7 Article

Virological and serological analysis of rhinovirus infections during the first two years of life in a cohort of children

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 2, Pages 263-268

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.2140

Keywords

respiratory infection; rhinovirus antibodies; RT-PCR

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The occurrence of rhinovirus infections in a cohort of 329 children during the first 2 years of life was determined by virus detection and serological methods. Rhinovirus detection on nasopharyngeal aspirates and middle ear fluids comprised a combination of virus isolation in HeLa Ohio cells and a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-hybridization assay on the inoculated cell cultures. Nasopharyngeal aspirates were collected when the child was referred to the study clinic because of respiratory symptoms. Nasopharyngeal aspirates and middle ear fluids were collected after clinical diagnosis of an acute otitis media. Complement-fixing antibodies to rhinovirus were determined from scheduled serum specimens collected at 6, 12,18, and 24 months of age and from paired sera taken in the cases of acute otitis media. Rhinovirus infections were shown to be common in infants, 24% of the children had complement-fixing antibodies at the age of 6 months and 22% had had at least one rhinovirus episode indicated by virus detection. At the age of 2 years, 91.3% of the children had rhinovirus-specific antibodies, while 79% of the children had experienced rhinovirus infection as judged by the virus detection tests. However, the complement-fixation assay was poor as a diagnostic test. Of 458 acute otitis media episodes studied, 41% were shown to be associated with a rhinovirus by RT-PCR-hybridization, while significant fourfold rise in rhinoviral antibodies was detected only in 7% of the cases. J. Med. Virol. 66:263-268,2002. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available