4.6 Article

High-Pressure Inactivation of Rotaviruses: Role of Treatment Temperature and Strain Diversity in Virus Inactivation

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 81, 期 19, 页码 6669-6678

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01853-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA award) [2011-68003-30005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rotavirus (RV) is the major etiological agent of acute gastroenteritis in infants worldwide. Although high-pressure processing (HPP) is a popular method to inactivate enteric pathogens in food, the sensitivity of different virus strains within same species and serotype to HPP is variable. This study aimed to compare the barosensitivities of seven RV strains derived from four serotypes (serotype G1, strains Wa, Ku, and K8; serotype G2, strain S2; serotype G3, strains SA-11 and YO; and serotype G4, strain ST3) following high-pressure treatment. RV strains showed various responses to HPP based on the initial temperature and had different inactivation profiles. Ku, K8, S2, SA-11, YO, and ST3 showed enhanced inactivation at 4 degrees C compared to 20 degrees C. In contrast, strain Wa was not significantly impacted by the initial treatment temperature. Within serotype G1, strain Wa was significantly (P<0.05) more resistant to HPP than strains Ku and K8. Overall, the resistance of the human RV strains to HPP at 4 degrees C can be ranked as Wa > Ku = K8 > S2 > YO > ST3, and in terms of serotype the ranking is G1 > G2 > G3 > G4. In addition, pressure treatment of 400 MPa for 2 min was sufficient to eliminate the Wa strain, the most pressure-resistant RV, from oyster tissues. HPP disrupted virion structure but did not degrade viral protein or RNA, providing insight into the mechanism of viral inactivation by HPP. In conclusion, HPP is capable of inactivating RV at commercially acceptable pressures, and the efficacy of inactivation is strain dependent.

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

4.6
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