4.7 Article

Clinical correlations of human cytomegalovirus strains and viral load in kidney transplant recipients

Journal

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 26-31

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2008.08.020

Keywords

Renal transplantation; Cytomegalovirus; Genotyping; pp65 antigenemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little is known about clinical differences associated with cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection by distinct strains in renal transplant patients. Different clinical pictures may be associated with specific viral genotypes. viral load, as well as host factors. The objective of this study was to identify CMV strains to determine viral load (antigenemia), and their correlation with clinical data in renal transplant recipients. Seventy-one patients were enrolled, comprising 91 samples. After selection, polymorphonuclear cells were used to amplify and sequence the gB region of CMV DNA. The sequences were analyzed to ascertain the frequency of different genotypes. Additionally, the results of this Study showed that the gB coding gene presents a great variability, revealing a variety of patterns: classical gB (1.4%), gB1V (46.4%), classical gB2 (35.2%), gB2V (2.8%), gB3 (1.4%), classical gB4 (4.9%) and gB4V (4.9%). The mean viral load in kidney transplant patient was 75.1 positive cells (1-1000). A higher viral load was observed in patients with genotype 4 infection. Statistically significant differences were detected between gB1 and gB4 (p=0.010), and between gB2 and gB4 (p=0.021). The average numbers of positive cells in relation to clinical presentation were: 34.5 in asymptomatic, 49.5 in CMV associated syndrome and 120.7 in patients with invasive disease (p=0.048). As a group, gB1 was the most frequent strain and revealed a potential risk for developing invasive disease. Viral load also seemed to be important as a marker associated with clinical presentation of the disease. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available