4.7 Article

Global VGIIa isolates are of comparable virulence to the major fatal Cryptococcus gattii Vancouver Island outbreak genotype

期刊

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 251-258

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03222.x

关键词

Cryptococcus gattii; genotype; Vancouver Island outbreak; VGII; virulence

资金

  1. University of Sydney [100124681]
  2. Valentine Charlton Bequest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The ongoing cryptococcosis outbreak on Vancouver Island, BC, Canada, is caused by two VGII sub-genotypes of the primary pathogen, Cryptococcus gattii: VGIIa isolates predominate, whereas VGIIb isolates are rare. Although higher virulence of the VGIIa genotype has been proposed, an unresolved key question is whether VGIIa isolates from other regions are also more virulent than VGIIb isolates. We report the relationship between genotype and virulence for a global collection of C. gattii VGIIa and VGIIb isolates (from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Thailand and the USA). In vitro and in vivo virulence studies were conducted. At 37 degrees C, growth [at 18 h: 0.2 optical density (OD) difference, p 0.026; at 36 h: 0.6 OD difference, p 0.036) and mean melanin production (OD = 0.25 vs. OD = 0.15, p 0.059] of VGIIa isolates was greater than that of VGIIb isolates. The inhibitory effect of high temperature on melanin production of VGIIa isolates was less than that of VGIIb isolates (OD = 0.36 vs. OD = 0.69; p 0.001). Capsule production at 37 degrees C of VGIIa isolates was less than that of VGIIb isolates. All VGIIa isolates were fertile, whereas only 17% of VGIIb isolates were fertile (p < 0.001). In vivo virulence studies using the BALB/c mice nasal inhalation model revealed that VGIIa isolates were more virulent than VGIIb isolates (p < 0.001) independent of their clinical (p 0.003) or environmental origin (p < 0.001). This study established a clear association between genotype and virulence of the primary fungal pathogen, C. gattii.

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