4.6 Article

Molecular Epidemiology and Disease Severity of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Vietnam

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045436

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Sciences
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan
  3. Honjo International Scholarship Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390266, 24390382, 22590620, 23406036] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in children worldwide and can cause high mortality, especially in developing countries. However, information on the clinical and molecular characteristics of RSV infection in developing countries is limited. From April 2010 to May 2011, 1,082 nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from children with ARI admitted to the Children's Hospital 2, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Samples were screened for RSV and genotyped by reverse transcription-PCR and sequencing. Demographic and clinical data was also recorded. RSV was found in 23.8% (257/1,082) of samples. RSV A was the dominant subgroup, accounting for 91.4% (235/257), followed by RSV B, 5.1% (13/257), and 9 cases (3.5%) were mixed infection of these subgroups. The phylogenetic analysis revealed that all group A strains belonged to the GA2 genotype. All group B strains belonged to the recently identified BA genotype, and further clustered into 2 recently described subgenotypes BA9 and BA10. One GA2 genotype strain had a premature stop codon which shortened the G protein length. RSV infection was significantly associated with younger age and higher severity score than those without. Co-infection with other viruses did not affect disease severity. RSV A caused more severe disease than RSV B. The results from this study will not only contribute to the growing database on the molecular diversity of RSV circulating worldwide but may be also useful in clinical management and vaccine development.

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