4.6 Article

Genetic Variation in Attachment Glycoprotein Genes of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Subgroups A and B in Children in Recent Five Consecutive Years

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075020

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [Z111107056811041]
  2. Key Technologies R&D Program of National Ministry of Science [2013ZX10004-202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human respiratory syncytial virus (HRSV) outranks other viral agents as the cause of respiratory tract diseases in children worldwide. Molecular epidemiological study of the virus provides useful information for the development of globally effective vaccine. We investigated the circulating pattern and genetic variation in the attachment glycoprotein genes of HRSV in Beijing during 5 consecutive seasons from 2007 to 2012. Out of 19,942 tested specimens, 3,160 (15.8%) were HRSV antigen-positive. The incidence of HRSV infection in males was significantly higher than in females. Of the total 723 (23.1%) randomly selected HRSV antigen-positive samples, 462 (63.9%) and 239 (33.1%) samples were identified as subgroup A and B, respectively. Subgroups A and B co-circulated in the 5 consecutive HRSV seasons, which showed a shifting mixed pattern of subgroup dominance. Complete G gene sequences were obtained from 190 HRSV-A and 72 HRSV-B by PCR for phylogenetic analysis. Although 4 new genotypes, NA3 and NA4 for HRSV-A and BA-C and CB1 for HRSV-B, were identified here, they were not predominant; NA1 and BA9 were the prevailing HRSV-A and -B genotypes, respectively. We provide the first report of a 9 consecutive nucleotide insertion in 3 CB1 genotype strains. One Beijing strain of ON1 genotype with a 72 nucleotide insertion was found among samples collected in February 2012. The reversion of codon states in glycosylation sites to previous ones were found from HRSV strains in this study, suggesting an immune-escape strategy of this important virus.

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