4.7 Article

Hepatitis B virus genotypes and precore/core-promoter mutations in Tunisian patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 291-297

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2006.05.013

关键词

chronic hepatitis; hepatitis B virus; hepatitis B virus genotypes; precore mutants; core-promoter mutants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of genotype and precore/core-promoter mutations in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected individuals in Tunisia. Methods: We studied 164 Tunisian patients (38 HBeAg-positive and 126 HBeAg-negative) with chronic HBV infection. Genotypes and precore/core-promoter mutations were studied using Inno-LiPA and Multiplex-PCR and PCR-RFLP methodology. Results: Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were higher in HBeAg-positive compared with HBeAg-negative patients (p < 0.05). Patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B were younger than HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B patients. The 164 genotypes were distributed as follows: 1 genotype A (0.6%), 1 genotype B (0.6%), 3 genotype C (1.82%), 139 genotype D (84.75%), and 20 mixed genotypes (12.2%). In the precore region (41.5%) of the patients had exclusively PC mutant and (50.9%) had a mixture of wild-type and variant sequences. PC variant was more commonly found in HBeAg-negative patients than in HBeAg-positive patients (94.5% vs. 87.8%), respectively. The mutations in the core promoter were more common in HBeAg-negative patients (65.4%) than in HbeAg-positive patients (18.2%). These results indicate that genotype D is predominant in Tunisia. Precore mutation occurred invariably among HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients, whereas core-promoter mutations were more frequently found in HBeAg-negative patients. Conclusion: Analysis of these mutants may prove useful for clinical evaluation and choice of therapy. (C) 2006 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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