4.4 Article

Identification of a genomic subgroup of BK polyomavirus spread in European populations

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 3201-3208

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.82266-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BK polyomavirus (BKV) is highly prevalent in the human population, infecting children without obvious symptoms and persisting in the kidney in a latent state. In immunosuppressed patients, BKV is reactivated and excreted in urine. BKV isolates worldwide are classified into four serologically distinct subtypes, I-IV, with subtype I being the most frequently detected. Furthermore, subtype I is subdivided into subgroups based on genomic variations. In this study, the distribution patterns of the subtypes and subgroups of BKV were compared among four patient populations with various immunosuppressive states and of various ethnic backgrounds: (A) Finnish renal-transplant recipients; (B) Irish/English haematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients with and without haemorrhagic cystitis; (C) Japanese renal-transplant recipients; and (D) Japanese bone-marrow transplant recipients. The typing sequences (287 bp) of BKV in population A were determined in this study; those in populations B-D have been reported previously. These sequences were subjected to phylogenetic and single nucleotide polymorphism analyses. Based on the results of these analyses, the BKV isolates in the four patient populations were classified into subtypes and subgroups. The incidence of subtype IV varied significantly among patient populations. Furthermore, the incidence of subgroup Ib-2 within subtype I was high in populations A and 8, whereas that of Ic was high in populations C and D (P < 0.01). These results suggest that subgroup Ib-2 is widespread among Europeans, whereas Ic is unique to north-east Asians. Furthermore, a phylogenetic analysis based on complete BKV DNA sequences supported the hypothesis that there is geographical separation of European and Asian BKV strains.

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

4.4
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