4.7 Article

PCR-sequence characterization of new adenoviruses found in reptiles and the first successful isolation of a lizard adenovirus

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 134, 期 3-4, 页码 233-240

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.08.003

关键词

Adenovirus; Atadenovirus; Lizard; PCR; Reptile; Virus isolation

资金

  1. National Office for Research and Technology
  2. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [OTKA K 67781]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A consensus nested PCR was used to screen diagnostic samples from approximately 70 reptiles for the presence of adenoviruses (AdV) in the years 2006-2007. Classical virus isolation methods were also used with all samples. After adenoviruses were detected in a group of helodermatid lizards in a Danish zoo, a follow-up study was also carried out on lizards from this group (10 Mexican beaded lizards and 24 Gila monsters) over the period of a year. Adenoviruses were detected in a total of 26 lizards and snakes by PCR. The PCR amplicons from all positive animals were sequenced and the resulting polymerase gene sequences were used for phylogenetic analysis. Altogether six Agamid AdVs were amplified, with a minimal sequence variation between one another and between these and GenBank Agamid AdVs. The sequence obtained from one of the Gila monsters is identical with the GenBank Helodermatid AdV, while the sequences from the Mexican beaded lizards differ from this. In a snake collection we have detected a new AdV from an Asp viper. All of the above mentioned adenoviruses Cluster in the Atadenovirus genus. However, the sequence from a new Varanid AdV detected in this study clusters; outside this genus. On cell culture, viruses were isolated from three of the AdV positive helodermatid lizards (one Mexican beaded lizard and two Gila monsters)and identified as AdVs based on electron microscopy and PCR and sequencing using cell culture supernatant. This is the first report of the successful isolation of a lizard AdV. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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