4.6 Article

Genotypic characterization of symptomatic hepatitis E virus (HEV) infections in Egypt

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 140-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.07.007

关键词

Hepatitis E virus (HEV); Egypt; Symptomatic; Genotype; Diversity

类别

资金

  1. NIAID R21 [AI 067868]
  2. NIDDK [DK 070528]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a common cause of acute viral hepatitis (AVH) in many developing countries. In Egypt, HEV seroprevalence is among the highest in the world; however, only a very limited number of Egyptian HEV sequences are currently available. Objectives: The objectives were to determine the HEV genotype(s) currently circulating in Egypt. Study design: AVH patients without serologic evidence of hepatitis A, B, and C viruses were evaluated for possible HEV infection using serologic assays for anti-HEV IgM and anti-HEV IgG and real-time PCR for HEV RNA. Stool suspensions from suspected cases were inoculated into rhesus macaques to confirm the presence of HEV. Sequence analysis was utilized to determine HEV genotype. Results: Of 287 subjects with AVH enrolled, 58 had serologic evidence of acute HEV infection. Stool samples for two of these patients were repeatedly positive for HEV RNA by real-time PCR. Macaques experimentally inoculated with these human stools also developed viremia. Sequence analysis of open reading frame (ORF) I demonstrated that these isolates belonged to HEV genotype I and were 3.9-9.5% divergent from other genotype 1 isolates. ORF2 was 5.3-8.7% divergent from previously reported Egyptian isolates. Conclusions: This study strongly suggests that genotype 1 HEV related to other North African isolates is circulating in acute symptomatic patients in Egypt. Further evaluation of genotypic variability is underway in this highly endemic cohort and is considered an important component of our increased understanding of HEV pathogenesis. (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