4.8 Article

Non-sequencing molecular approaches to identify preS2-defective hepatitis B virus variants proved to be associated with severe liver diseases

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 515-519

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2003.11.025

关键词

HBV carriers; inactive HBV infection; hepatocelluar carcinoma; HBV heterogeneity; PreS2-defective HBV variants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: PreS2-defective hepatitis B virus (HBV) variants may emerge during chronic HBV infection. These variants carry mutation(s) at the ATG-start-codon and/or in-frame deletion into the preS2 genomic region and are commonly detected by sequencing analyses. We evaluated the prevalence of these variants in a large series of chronic HBV infected patients through non-sequencing molecular approaches. Methods: We examined HBV isolates from 110 HBV carriers: 15 were inactive carriers (IC); 50 had chronic hepatitis (CH); 25 were cirrhotics; 19 had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The entire preS2 genomic region was amplified by PCR technique. The amplicons were processed: (A) through electrophoresis on acrylamide gel to reveal deleted genomes; (B) through electrophoresis on agarose gel after digestion by Nla III enzyme that cuts the wild ATG-start-codon but not the mutated one. Results: We detected preS2 variants in 56/110 cases (51%). In particular, we found preS2-defective mutants in 2/15 IC, 25/50 CH, 13/26 cirrhotics, and 16/19 HCC. The presence of these variants was thus significantly associated with active infection and liver disease (P < 0.002). Moreover, among cases with liver disease preS2-mutants were more prevalent in HCC patients (P < 0.02). Conclusions: Our non-sequencing molecular methods are sensitive and specific, and simplify the identification of all preS2 HBV variant forms. Infection by these variants is significantly associated with active infection and HCC. (C) 2003 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by 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

4.8
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