4.7 Article

BK Virus Sequences in Specimens From Aborted Fetuses

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 82, 期 12, 页码 2127-2132

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21923

关键词

polyomavirus; vertical transmission; viral capsid protein; transcriptional control region

类别

资金

  1. Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata Regione Piemonte
  2. Ospedale Maggiore della Carita, Novara, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given the conflicting results of the few published studies, the aim of this retrospective molecular-based study of 10 aborted fetuses that underwent complete autopsy and 10 placentas was carried out to determine whether BK polyomavirus (BKV) can be transmitted transplacentally. The interruption of pregnancy was due to a miscarriage (five cases) or a prenatal diagnosis of severe intrauterine malformations (five cases). Samples from the brain, heart, lung, thymus, liver, and kidney were taken from each fetus, and two samples were obtained from all of the placentas. The presence of BKV was investigated by means of PCR using primers specific for the transcription control region (TCR) and viral capsidic protein 1 (VP1) and DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. BKV genome was detected in 22 of 60 samples (36.6%) from seven fetuses (70%), regardless of the cause of abortion: VP1 was amplified in 12 samples (54%), TCR in seven (32%), and both in three (14%). VP1 was also detected in one placental sample. BKV sequences were most frequently detected in heart and lung (five cases), but sequence analyses of TCR and VP1 revealed a high degree of genomic variability among the samples taken from different organs and the placenta. These results indicate that BKV can cross the placenta during pregnancy and become latent in fetal organs other than the kidney and brain (previously considered the main targets of BKV latency). This may happen in early pregnancy and does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of abortion. J. Med. Virol. 82:2127-2132, 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