4.7 Article

Molecular Characterization and Viral Origin of the 2015 Dengue Outbreak in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/srep34444

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81171946]
  2. National Twelfth Five Year major new drug discovery technology major projects [2012ZX09104-302]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province [2009ZC187M, 2011CA016, 2012FB188, 2016FA029]
  4. Special Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20111106120055]
  5. Scientific Research Foundation for Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of China [2013-277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 1067 serum samples were collected from febrile patients in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, 2015. Of these, 852 cases were confirmed to be dengue NS1-positive. 76 structural protein genes were sequenced through RT-PCR based on the viral RNAs extracted from serum samples. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that all strains were classified as cosmopolitan genotype of DENV-2. After comparing with the DENV-2SS, 173 base substitutions were found in 76 sequences, resulting in 43 nonsynonymous mutations, of which 22 mutations existed among all samples. According to secondary structure prediction, 8 new possible nucelotide/protein binding sites were found and another 4 sites were lost among the 775 amino acids of DENV structural proteins as compared with DENV-2SS. Meanwhile, 6 distinct amino acid changes were found in the helix and strand regions, and the distribution of the exposed and buried regions was slightly altered. The results indicated that the epidemic dengue strains of Xishuangbanna in 2015 are most similar to the Indian strain in 2001 and the Sri Lankan strain in 2004. Moreover, it also show a very strong similarity to the epidemic strains of Fujian province in 1999 and 2010, which show that there is an internal recycling epidemic trend of DENV in China.

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