4.4 Article

Viral metagenomics analysis demonstrates the diversity of viral flora in piglet diarrhoeic faeces in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 1603-1611

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.063743-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Hightech R&D Program (863 Program) [2012AA101304]
  2. Innovative Research Team Program of the Department of Education of Sichuan Province [13TD0057]
  3. Veterinary Medicine Discipline Program of Southwest University for Nationalities [2014XWD-S0906]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the diversity of viral flora, we used metagenomics to study the viral communities in a pooled faecal sample of 27 diarrhoeic piglets from intensive commercial farms in China. The 15 distinct mammalian viruses identified in the pooled diarrhoeic sample were, in order of abundance of nucleic acid sequence, Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), sapovirus, porcine bocavirus-4 (PBoV-4), sapelovirus, torovirus, coronavirus, PBoV-2, stool-associated single-stranded DNA virus (poSCV), astrovirus (AstV), kobuvirus, posavirus-1, porcine enterovirus-9 (PEV-9), porcine circovirus-like (po-circo-like) virus, picobirnavirus (PBV) and Torque teno sus virus 2 (TTSuV-2). The prevalence rate of each virus was verified from diarrhoeic and healthy piglets by PCR assay. A mean of 5.5 different viruses were shed in diarrhoeic piglets, and one piglet was in fact co-infected with 11 different viruses. By contrast, healthy piglets shed a mean of 3.2 different viruses. Compared with samples from healthy piglets, the co-infection of PEDV and PBoV had a high prevalence rate in diarrhoea samples, suggesting a correlation with the appearance of diarrhoea in piglets. Furthermore, we report here for the first time the presence of several recently described viruses in China, and the identification of novel genotypes. Therefore, our investigation results provide an unbiased survey of viral communities and prevalence in faecal samples of piglets.

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

4.4
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