4.7 Article

Determinants of Gammaherpesvirus Shedding in Saliva Among Ugandan Children and Their Mothers

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 218, 期 6, 页码 892-900

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiy262

关键词

EBV; KSHV; saliva; shedding; Uganda

资金

  1. Intramural Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN261200800001E]
  2. Wellcome Trust [064693, 079110, 95778, 090132]
  3. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
  4. UK Department for International Development (DfID), under the MRC/DfID concordat
  5. MRC [MC_UP_1204/15, MC_UU_00027/5] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) are transmitted via saliva, but factors associated with salivary shedding are unknown. Methods. We measured the DNA load of both viruses in saliva specimens collected from approximately 500 Ugandan mothers and their 6-year-old children, testing all participants for EBV and KSHV-seropositive individuals for KSHV. Results. EBV and KSHV were shed by 72% and 22% of mothers, respectively, and by 85% and 40% of children, respectively; boys were more likely than girls to shed KSHV (48% vs 30%) but were equally likely to shed EBV. Children shed more KSHV and EBV than mothers, but salivary loads of EBV and KSHV were similar. KSHV shedding increased with increasing anti-KSHV (K8.1) antibodies in mothers and with decreasing antimalarial antibodies both in mothers and children. Among mothers, 40% of KSHV shedders also shed EBV, compared with 75% of KSHV nonshedders; among children, EBV was shed by 65% and 83%, respectively. Conclusions. In summary, in this population, individuals were more likely to shed EBV than KSHV in saliva. We identified several factors, including child's sex, that influence KSHV shedding, and we detected an inverse relationship between EBV and KSHV shedding, suggesting a direct or indirect interaction between the two viruses.

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