Puumala hantavirus genome in patients with nephropathia epidemica: correlation of PCR positivity with HLA haplotype and link to viral sequences in local rodents

A Plyusnin, J Hörling, M Kanerva, J Mustonen, Y Cheng, J Partanen, O Vapalahti, S K Kukkonen, J Niemimaa, H Henttonen, B Niklasson, A Lundkvist, A Vaheri, A Plyusnin, J Hörling, M Kanerva, J Mustonen, Y Cheng, J Partanen, O Vapalahti, S K Kukkonen, J Niemimaa, H Henttonen, B Niklasson, A Lundkvist, A Vaheri

Abstract

Reverse transcription-PCR was used to analyze specimens from 20 Finnish nephropathia epidemica (NE) patients hospitalized during the period from October 1994 to January 1995. Blood and/or urine sediment specimens from seven patients were found to be positive for the genome sequences of Puumala hantavirus (PUU). PCR positivity of the specimens from the patients correlated well with the HLA-DRB1*0301 and HLA B8 alleles, which previously were shown to associate with severe courses of NE. Genetic analysis of the partial M-and/or S-segment sequences obtained from three severely ill NE patients revealed three PUU strains related to but distinct from previously reported strains from Finland. The M-segment sequence of PUU from bank voles trapped near the probable site of infection for one of the patients showed 98.2% identity to that of the PUU strain obtained from the patient, suggesting a link between wild-type PUU from the natural focus and the NE case. The S-segment sequences from the patient and the bank voles, however, showed substantially lower identity (95.8%). As this difference in diversity for M and S genes (1.8 and 4.2%) is atypical for PUU genetic drift, one possibility is that the strain acquired at the putative place of infection is a reassortant one.

References

    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Dec;74(12):5463-7
    1. J Gen Virol. 1996 Oct;77 ( Pt 10):2555-62
    1. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl. 1982;36:88-91
    1. J Infect Dis. 1987 Feb;155(2):269-76
    1. Anal Biochem. 1987 Apr;162(1):156-9
    1. Virology. 1989 Oct;172(2):498-505
    1. Virology. 1990 Jan;174(1):79-86
    1. Virology. 1991 Jul;183(1):386-91
    1. Lancet. 1991 Nov 30;338(8779):1353-6
    1. J Gen Virol. 1992 Mar;73 ( Pt 3):567-73
    1. Virus Res. 1992 Jun;24(1):35-46
    1. J Gen Virol. 1992 Apr;73 ( Pt 4):829-38
    1. Exp Clin Immunogenet. 1992;9(2):58-71
    1. Ann Clin Res. 1971;3:1-54
    1. Eur J Immunogenet. 1993 Apr;20(2):103-9
    1. Immunol Today. 1993 Jul;14(7):349-52
    1. Science. 1993 Nov 5;262(5135):914-7
    1. Virus Res. 1993 Oct;30(1):97-103
    1. J Gen Virol. 1994 Feb;75 ( Pt 2):405-9
    1. Scand J Infect Dis. 1994;26(1):7-13
    1. J Infect Dis. 1994 Dec;170(6):1456-62
    1. Virology. 1995 Feb 1;206(2):963-72
    1. Virology. 1995 Feb 1;206(2):973-83
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Feb;33(2):277-82
    1. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1569
    1. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995 Aug;53(2):134-40
    1. Virology. 1995 Oct 20;213(1):122-30
    1. Virus Res. 1995 Sep;38(1):25-41
    1. J Med Virol. 1995 Aug;46(4):293-303
    1. J Virol. 1995 Dec;69(12):8137-41
    1. Virology. 1995 Dec 20;214(2):602-10
    1. Scand J Infect Dis. 1995;27(5):515-7
    1. Virus Res. 1995 Oct;38(2-3):279-89
    1. Kidney Int. 1996 Jan;49(1):217-21
    1. Virus Res. 1995 Dec;39(2-3):237-50
    1. Virus Res. 1995 Dec;39(2-3):321-30
    1. J Infect Dis. 1980 Feb;141(2):131-4

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir