4.7 Article

Characterization of Group A Rotavirus Infections in Adolescents and Adults From Pune, India: 1993-1996 and 2004-2007

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 519-527

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21708

关键词

epidemiology; adult diarrhea; G and P types; rotavirus

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 1,591 fecal specimens were collected in 1993-1996 and 2004-2007 from adolescents and adults with acute gastroenteritis in Pune, India for detection and characterization of rotavirus. At the two time points, group A rotavirus was detected in 8.6% and 16.2% of the adolescents and 5.2% and 17.2% of the adults, respectively. Reverse transcription-PCR with consensus primers followed by multiplex genotyping PCR detected common strains G1P[8], G2P[4], GPM, and G4P[8] in a total of 53.1% of the samples from 1993 to 1996, while the only prevalent strain identified in 2004-2007 was G2P[4] (23.5% of total). Uncommon rotavirus strains (G1P[4], G2P[8] G9P[6]/P[4]) increased from 7.8% (1993-1996) to 41.2% (2004-2007), while the prevalence of mixed rotavirus infections was high (39%/35%) at both time points. Mixed infections detected by multiplex PCR were confirmed by sequencing two or more individual genotype-specific PCR products of the VP7 and VP4 genes from the same sample. Phylogenetic analysis of the sequences showed circulation of a heterogeneous rotavirus strain population comprising genotypes G1 (lineages I and IIb), G2 (lineages I and IIb),G4(lineage la), P[4] (lineages P[4]-5 and P[4]-1), P[8] (lineages P[8]-II and P[8]-III), and P[6] (M37-like lineage). The VP6 gene sequences of the nontypeable strains were most homologous to animal strains. This study documents the molecular epidemiology of rotavirus strains in adolescents and adults in India, and suggests that it may be important to monitor these strains over time for the potential impact on rotavirus vaccines under development for use in the Indian population. J. Med. Virol. 82:519-527, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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