4.6 Article

Molecular and biological analysis revealed genetic diversity and high virulence strain of Toxoplasma gondii in Japan

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227749

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [24390103, 15H04726, 16J01376, 23117007]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan [H23-Shinkosaiko-ippan-014]
  3. Japan Health Sciences Foundation [KHA1101]
  4. Emerging/Re-emerging Infectious Diseases Project of Japan from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development (AMED) [40104600]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04726, 24390103, 16J01376] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toxoplasma gondii is classified into 16 haplogroups based on a worldwide genotyping study of the parasite. However, only a few isolates from Japan were included in this analysis. To conduct more precise genotyping of T. gondii, we examined the genotypes of Japanese isolates in this study. DNA sequences of 6 loci were determined in 17 Japanese isolates and compared with those of strains of 16 haplogroups. As a result, Japanese isolates were classified into four groups. We investigated the virulence of some Japanese isolates and found a highly virulent strain in mice, comparable to that of RH strain, although this Japanese isolate was sister to strains of haplogroup 2, which show moderate virulence in mice. We further investigated whether this high virulence isolate had different virulence mechanism and strategy to adapt to Japanese host from other strains by comparing the virulence-related genes, ROP5, 18 and the immunomodulatory gene, ROP16 of the isolate with those of archetypical strains (GT1, ME49 and VEG). This analysis indicated the high virulence of the isolate in mice was partly explained by gene sequences of ROP5 and ROP16. These findings lead to the elucidation of biodiversity of T. gondii and have potential to optimize the diagnostic protocol.

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