4.6 Article

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) deletions as biomarkers of response to treatment of chronic active EBV

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 195, Issue 2, Pages 249-255

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.17790

Keywords

Epstein-Barr virus; chronic active EBV; defective viral genome

Categories

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  2. Wellcome Trust [204870/Z/16/Z]
  3. W.T. Henry Wellcome fellowship [206478/Z/17/Z]
  4. MRC [MR/S022597/1]
  5. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
  6. NIHR UCL/UCLH BRC
  7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  8. Wellcome Trust [206478/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  9. MRC [MR/S022597/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CAEBV is a rare disease characterized by persistent EBV infection, with defective EBV genomes found in East Asian patients. In this study, EBV deletions were observed in blood samples from CAEBV patients but not in saliva samples, and these deletions were lost over time after successful treatment. This suggests that CAEBV is associated with the evolution and persistence of EBV+ haematological clones that are lost on successful treatment.
Chronic active Epstein-Barr virus (CAEBV) disease is a rare condition characterised by persistent EBV infection in previously healthy individuals. Defective EBV genomes were found in East Asian patients with CAEBV. In the present study, we sequenced 14 blood EBV samples from three UK patients with CAEBV, comparing the results with saliva CAEBV samples and other conditions. We observed EBV deletions in blood, some of which may disrupt viral replication, but not saliva in CAEBV. Deletions were lost overtime after successful treatment. These findings are compatible with CAEBV being associated with the evolution and persistence of EBV+ haematological clones that are lost on successful treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available