4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Direct genotyping of cytomegalovirus envelope glycoproteins from toddler's saliva samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 S43-S48

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.08.018

关键词

Genotype; Cytomegalovirus; Saliva; PCR-RFLP; Toddler; Glycoproteins

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The polymorphism of genes encoding CMV envelope protein is used for strain classification and may influence pathogenesis and/or infectivity. CMV genotyping is usually based on sequencing or acrylamide gel-RFLP, but these methods are not suited to rapid screening of large populations. Objectives: We developed a high-throughput method to analyze CMV strains diversity and to detect multiple-strain infection in a large population of toddlers (six daycare centers (DCC) and an emergency unit (EU)). Methods: We developed a new PCR-RFLP method coupled with capillary electrophoresis fragment detection for UL55-gB, UL75-gH and UL73-gN genotyping. To detect gB recombinants, gpUL55 typing was applied to two variable zones (NTerminal and central). We applied this method to 212 CMV-positive saliva samples and controlled the results by direct sequencing of PCR products. Results: We identified 112 strains, that fell into eight groups in UL55-gB, two groups in UL75-gH, and seven groups in UL73-gN. The 79 samples from the emergency unit contained 30 strains, 28 children harboring 2 strains. The samples (n = 133) from the six daycare centers contained respectively 4, 1, 6, 1 and 11 strains. Fifteen percent of strains were UL55-gB recombinants. Conclusion: Our new method can simultaneously determine gB, gH and gN genotypes and offers more precise classification of CMV strains than previous RFLP-based methods. This could constitute the basis for a new classification, particularly in UL55-gB. Easy direct identification of multiple strains and recombinants in pathological samples could facilitate large epidemiologic studies. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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