4.2 Article

Isolation and Characterization of a Turkey Arthritis Reovirus

Journal

AVIAN DISEASES
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 97-103

Publisher

AMER ASSOC AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1637/10353-090712-Reg.1

Keywords

hock joint swelling; turkey arthritis reovirus; phylogenetic analysis

Funding

  1. Rapid Agricultural Response Fund, University of Minnesota

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the spring and summer of 2011, the Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Minnesota received 14 submissions of 15-to-18-week-old tom turkeys that were recumbent with wing tip bruises (wing walkers) and uni- or bilateral swelling of the hock (tibiotarsal) joints. Gastrocnemius or digital flexor tendons were occasionally ruptured. A total of five turkey arthritis reoviruses (TARV-MN1 through TARV-MN5) were isolated in specific-pathogen-free embryonated chicken eggs and QT-35 cells. The identity of the isolates was confirmed by electron microscopy, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and gene sequence analysis. BLAST analysis on the basis of a 880 bp nucleotide sequence of the S4 gene confirmed all isolates as a reovirus. Phylogenetic analysis divided the five isolates into two subgroups: subgroup I containing TARV-MN1, -2, -3, and -5, and the other subgroup containing TARV-MN4. Isolates in subgroup I had a similarity of 97%-100% with each other, while subgroup II (TARV-MN4) had a similarity of only 89.2% with subgroup I viruses. This isolate showed 90%-93% similarity with turkey enteric reoviruses in the United States, while the other four isolates in subgroup I had 89%-97.6% similarity. These results indicate divergence within TARVs as well as from enteric viruses, which needs to be confirmed by complete genome sequence analysis. Further experimental studies are planned to determine the role of these isolates in turkey arthritis and to compare them with classical chicken reovirus.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available