4.6 Article

Cynomolgus Monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) as an Experimental Infection Model for Human Group A Rotavirus

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v10070355

关键词

human group A rotaviruses; cynomolgus monkeys; experimental infection model

类别

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-MCT/CNPq) [14/2010-Universal, 479965/2010-2]
  2. Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ) [APQ1 2010/02, E-26/110.517/2011]
  3. Oswaldo Cruz Institute (LDTV-POM-IOC/Fiocruz)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Group A rotaviruses (RVA) are one of the most common causes of severe acute gastroenteritis in infants worldwide. Rotaviruses spread from person to person, mainly by faecal-oral transmission. Almost all unvaccinated children may become infected with RVA in the first two years of life. The establishment of an experimental monkey model with RVA is important to evaluate new therapeutic approaches. In this study, we demonstrated viral shedding and viraemia in juvenile-adult Macaca fascicularis orally inoculated withWa RVA prototype. Nine monkeys were inoculated orally: seven animals with human RVA and two control animals with saline solution. During the study, the monkeys were clinically monitored, and faeces and blood samples were tested for RVA infection. In general, the inoculated animals developed an oligosymptomatic infection pattern. The main clinical symptoms observed were diarrhoea in two monkeys for three days, associated with a reduction in plasmatic potassium content. Viral RNA was detected in seven faecal and five sera samples from inoculated animals, suggesting virus replication. Cynomolgus monkeys are susceptible hosts for human Wa RVA infection. When inoculated orally, they presented self-limited diarrhoea associated with presence of RVA infectious particles in faeces. Thus, cynomolgus monkeys may be useful as animal models to evaluate the efficacy of new antiviral approaches.

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