4.6 Article

Foot-and-mouth disease viruses of the O/ME-SA/Ind-2001e sublineage in Pakistan

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 3126-3135

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14134

关键词

antigenicity; aphthovirus; vaccine matching; virus neutralization; virus sequence

资金

  1. European Union
  2. European Commission for the control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, EuFMD
  3. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and United Kingdom [SE2944]
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of the United Kingdom [BBS/E/I/00007035, BBS/E/I/00007036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of the foot-and-mouth disease virus O/ME-SA/Ind-2001e sublineage has spread to multiple districts in Pakistan, closely related to viruses circulating in Bhutan, Nepal, and India. While current vaccine strains are effective in controlling the current outbreaks, further research is needed to monitor the spread and evolution of this virus sublineage in the region.
The presence of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) of the O/ME-SA/Ind-2001e sublineage within Pakistan was initially detected in two samples collected during 2019. Analysis of further serotype O FMDVs responsible for disease outbreaks in 2019-2020 in the country has now identified the spread of this sublineage to 10 districts within two separate provinces in North-Eastern and North-Western Pakistan. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that these viruses are closely related to those circulating in Bhutan, Nepal and India. The VP1 coding sequences of these viruses from Pakistan belong to three distinct clusters, which may indicate multiple introductions of this virus sublineage, although the routes of introduction are unknown. Vaccine matching studies against O1 Manisa, O 3039 and O TUR/5/2009 support the suitability of existing vaccine strains to control current field outbreaks, but further studies are warranted to monitor the spread and evolution of the O/ME-SA/Ind-2001e sublineage in the region. (145 words).

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