4.7 Article

Molecular characterization of Helicobacter pylori strains isolated from cynomolgus monkeys (M-fascicularis)

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 1-2, 页码 133-139

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.04.003

关键词

nonhuman primate; cynomolgus monkey; gastritis; gastric erosions; 16S ribosomal RNA; Helicobacter pylori; DNA fingerprinting; DNA sequencing; genotyping; stomach; animal model

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA082312, R01 CA082312-08, R01 CA082312] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We recently reported the occurrence of natural infection with H. pylori in a group of cynomolgus monkeys with chronic active gastritis and gastric erosions. The goal of the present study was to characterize and to compare strains isolated from animals originating from two different geographical areas. Gross and microscopic pathology determined at the time of necropsy was similar in all animals. H. pylori were isolated from specimens harvested in five monkeys (four from Vietnam and one from the Philippines) with gastritis. Isolates from monkeys bred in Vietnam had a similar DNA fingerprint pattern, which was distinct from that of isolates from a monkey bred in the Philippines. All strains were of the s1a vacA subtype, but all the 'Vietnamese' strains were cagA(+) and all but one were iceA1 whereas the 'Philippino's trains were cagA(-) and iceA2. The sequences of the 16S rRNA of the Vietnamese and Philippino strains shared 98% homology and both clustered with H. pylori sequences present in the NCBI database. In conclusion, cynomolgus monkeys can be naturally colonized by H. pylori, and the strains isolated from these animals appear to vary according to the geographical origin, thus indicating probable infection prior to importation. Since some of the cynomolgus monkeys developed antral erosions during natural infection, we propose that this animal model may be used to investigate the role of H. pylori in ulcerogenesis. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. 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