4.4 Article

Evaluation of a mouse model for the West Nile virus group for the purpose of determining viral pathotypes

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 1221-1232

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.063537-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

West Nile virus (WNV; family Flaviviridae; genus Flavivirus) group members are an important cause of viral meningoencephalitis in some areas of the world. They exhibit marked variation in pathogenicity, with some viral lineages (such as those from North America) causing high prevalence of severe neurological disease, whilst others (such as Australian Kunjin virus) rarely cause disease. The aim of this study was to characterize WNV disease in a mouse model and to elucidate the pathogenetic features that distinguish disease variation. Tenfold dilutions of five WNV strains (New York 1999, MRM16 and three horse isolates of WNV-Kunjin: Boort and two isolates from the 2011 Australian outbreak) were inoculated into mice by the intraperitoneal route. All isolates induced meningoencephalitis in different proportions of infected mice. WNVNY99 was the most pathogenic, the three horse isolates were of intermediate pathogenicity and WNVKUNV-MRM16 was the least, causing mostly asymptomatic disease with seroconversion. Infectivity, but not pathogenicity, was related to challenge dose. Using cluster analysis of the recorded clinical signs, histopathological lesions and antigen distribution scores, the cases could be classified into groups corresponding to disease severity. Metrics that were important in determining pathotype included neurological signs (paralysis and seizures), meningoencephalitis, brain antigen scores and replication in extra-neural tissues. Whereas all mice infected with WNVNY99 had extra-neural antigen, those infected with the WNV-Kunjin viruses only occasionally had antigen outside the nervous system. We conclude that the mouse model could be a useful tool for the assessment of pathotype for WNVs.

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

4.4
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