4.5 Article

Genomic sequence and virulence comparison of four Type 2 porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus strains

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 169, 期 1, 页码 212-221

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2012.07.030

关键词

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV); Genomic sequence; Virulence; Pathogenicity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) is a ubiquitous and costly virus that exhibits substantial sequence and virulence disparity among diverse isolates. In this study, we compared the whole genomic sequence and virulence of 4 Type 2 PRRSV isolates. Among the 4 isolates, SDSU73, MN184, and NADC30 were all clearly more virulent than NADC31, and among the 3 more virulent isolates, there were subtle differences based on viral replication, lung lesions, lymphadenopathy, febrile response, decreased weight gains, and cytokine responses in the lung. Lesions consistent with bacterial bronchopneumonia were present to varying degrees in pigs infected with PRRSV, and bacteria typically associated with the porcine respiratory disease complex were isolated from the lung of these pigs. Genomic sequence evaluation indicates that SDSU73 is most similar to the nucleotide sequence of JA142, the parental strain of Ingelvac (R) PRRS ATP, while the nucleotide sequences of NADC30 and NADC31 are more similar to strain MN184. Both the NADC30 and NADC31 isolates of PRRSV, isolated in 2008, maintain the nonstructural protein 2 (nsp2) deletion seen in MN184 that was isolated in 2001, but NADC31 has two additional 15 and 36 nucleotide deletions, and these strains are 8-14% different on a nucleotide basis from the MN184 strain. These results indicate that newer U.S. Type 2 strains still exhibit variability in sequence and pathogenicity and although PRRSV strains appear to be reducing the size of the nsp2 over time, this does not necessarily mean that the strain is more virulent. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.5
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