4.1 Article

Molecular characterization of rabies virus isolated from non-haematophagous bats in Brazil

期刊

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA MEDICINA TROPICAL
DOI: 10.1590/S0037-86822011000600006

关键词

Rabies; Bats; Antigenic characterization; Genetic characterization

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo-FAPESP [05/59818-6, 07/01843-0]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [07/01843-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Rabies is an important zoonosis that causes thousands of deaths worldwide each year. Although the terrestrial cycle, mainly transmitted by dogs, is controlled in Brazil, the aerial cycle remains a serious public health issue, besides the economic problem. In the aerial cycle, the haematophagous bat Desmodus rotundus is the main source of infection, where several different species of non-haematophagous bats can be infected and can transmit the virus. Methods: The aim of this work was to study the epidemiological pattern of rabies using antigenic characterization with monoclonal antibodies and genetic characterization by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction followed by sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of non-haematophagous bats' and herbivorous animals' central nervous system samples from the western region of the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Results: From 27 samples, 3 antigenic variants were identified: AgV-3, AgV-4, and AgV-6; and from 29 samples, 5 different clusters were identified, all belonging to the rabies virus species. Conclusions: Although only non-haematophagous bats were evaluated in the studied region, the majority of samples were from antigenic and genetic variants related to haematophagous bats Desmodus rotundus. Samples from the same antigenic variant were segregated in more than one genetic cluster. This study demonstrated the diversity of rabies virus genetic lineages presented and circulating in non-haematophagous bats in the studied region.

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

4.1
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