4.7 Article

Assay for 5′ Noncoding Region Analysis of All Human Rhinovirus Prototype Strains

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 3736-3745

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00674-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. California Department of Public Health
  2. National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [AI-50496]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing recognition of the association of rhinovirus with severe lower respiratory tract illnesses has clarified the need to understand the relationship between specific serotypes of rhinovirus and their clinical consequences. To accomplish this, a specific and sensitive assay to detect and serotype rhinovirus directly from clinical specimens is needed. Traditional methods of serotyping using culture and serum neutralization are time-consuming, limited to certain reference laboratories, and complicated by the existence of over 100 serotypes of human rhinoviruses (HRVs). Accordingly, we have developed a sequence-based assay that targets a 390-bp fragment accounting for approximately two-thirds of the 5' noncoding region (NCR). Our goal was to develop an assay permitting amplification of target sequences directly from clinical specimens and distinction among all 101 prototype strains of rhinoviruses. We determined the sequences of all 101 prototype strains of HRV in this region to enable differentiation of virus genotypes in both viral isolates and clinical specimens. We evaluated this assay in a total of 101 clinical viral isolates and 24 clinical specimens and compared our findings to genotyping results using a different region of the HRV genome (the VP4-VP2 region). Five specimens associated with severe respiratory disease in children did not correlate with any known serotype of rhinovirus and were found to belong to a novel genogroup of rhinovirus, genogroup C. Isolates were also found that corresponded to the genogroup A2 variant identified in New York and Australia and two other novel group A clusters (GAC1 and GAC2).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据