4.7 Article

Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Children with Acute Respiratory Tract Infections in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 4193-4199

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00179-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. 973 National Key Basic Research Program of China [2007CB310500]
  2. China Mega-Project for Infectious Disease [2009ZX10004-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are limited data on the prevalence and clinical and molecular characterization of human respiratory syncytial virus (HRSV) in children with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in China. From December 2006 to March 2009, 894 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) were collected from children under 14 years of age with ARTIs. Samples were screened for HRSV and genotyped by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and sequencing. Demographic and clinical information was recorded. A total of 38.14% (341/894) of samples were positive for HRSV. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that 60.4% of the selected 227 RSV strains were GA2, 34.4% were BA, 4.8% were GB2, and 0.4% were GB3. A total of 40.47% of all of the RSV-positive samples were coinfected with other respiratory viruses, and adenovirus was the most common additional respiratory virus. No statistical differences were found in the frequency of diagnosis and symptoms between the coinfection group and monoinfection group. Additionally, no statistical differences were found in epidemiological characterizations or disease severity between genotype BA-and GA2-positive patients, except for a greater frequency of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) (mostly bronchitis) with BA. HRSV is the most important viral pathogen in Chinese children with ARTIs. Four genotypes (i.e., GA2, BA, GB2, and GB3) circulate locally, and the predominant genotype may shift between seasons. Coinfection with other viruses does not affect disease severity. HRSV genotypes were not associated with different epidemiological characterizations or disease severity.

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