We compared some of the biological and structural features of an adenovirus type 2 temperature-sensitive mutant (tsl) defective for maturation cleavages and uncoating with wild-type (WT) virus. The cleavage defect caused tsl to produce virions at 39° that contained five precursor proteins (pTP, UK, PVI, PVΠ, PVIII). Coinfection of cells with such tsl virions and a variety of mutants or WT virus not only failed to complement tsl but actually depressed the infection by the second virus. The uncoating defect could only be overcome by multiplicity-dependent leakiness. The structure of the tsl virion was compared with that of WT virus by iodination with chloramine-T, chloroglycoluril and lactoperoxidase, by cross-linking, and by digestion with proteases. Aside from the presence of precursor proteins and the greater stability of tsl virions, no other differences were found that could account for the uncoating defect. Therefore, we postulate that this defect was caused by the greater stability imparted to the virion by precursor proteins PVI, PVΠ and PVIII.
Restriction endonuclease analysis was performed on reference strains of each unknown adenovirus subgenus, in comparison with 40 isolates not identified by our routine methods of neutralization with antisera of species 1 to 8. Several uncommon species would not have been identified initially without the assistance of reference laboratories (species 15, 35, and 37). Other species were identified by comparison with published adenovirus DNA restriction endonuclease patterns or from DNA analysis of reference strains (species 31, 40, and 41). Some isolates could not be matched beyond the level of presumptive adenovirus subgenus. Genomic DNA restriction endonuclease analysis of adenoviruses was useful for the identification of adenovirus isolates in a diagnostic virology laboratory. However, accurate interpretation of results will require more extensive DNA restriction endonuclease fragment analysis of a broader range of adenovirus species and genomic variant strains.
By using a genomic probe, DNA hybridization for adenovirus type 41 (Ad4l) showed equivalent sensitivity with a direct spot method from clinical specimens compared with a more laborious DNA phenol extraction procedure. By using this direct spot preparation method, fecal specimens of 67 patients were examined under code for blind testing for the presence of adenovirus by DNA hybridization by using two Ad4l probes (genomic and cloned BglII-D) and an adenovirus type 2 genomic probe. Identical results were obtained with both of the Ad4l probes. Of the fecal specimens from 42 children with adenovirus gastroenteritis studied prospectively (16 of whom had enteric adenoviruses), 13 specimens (81%) were detected by DNA hybridization with a cloned Ad4l BglII-D probe. There were 14 fecal specimens that were positive by electron microscopy (EM) and culture for nonenteric adenovirus, and 2 specimens were positive by DNA hybridization (87% specificity); these 2 specimens may have been from a mixed enteric adenovirus and nonenteric adenovirus infection. None of 26 specimens from age-matched healthy control patients was positive for adenovirus by EM or DNA hybridization. Our data indicated that DNA hybridization gives highly reproducible results. The direct spot technique is the method of choice for specimen preparation in the diagnostic laboratory, since it requires only the simplest manipulations in specimen preparation. By using DNA hybridization with the BglII D fragment of a cloned enteric Ad4l, both adenovirus type 40 and Ad4l were detected directly from fecal specimens, but it was less sensitive than EM following direct ultracentrifugation of specimens. The BglII-D Ad4l DNA probe was highly specific for enteric adenoviruses, and DNA hybridization with this probe could be a useful diagnostic test for these fastidious adenoviruses.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.