Examination of uncommon clinical isolates of human adenoviruses by restriction endonuclease analysis

Abstract

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.

Molecular epidemiology of adenoviruses isolated from hospitalized children with severe lower acute respiratory infection in Santiago, Chile

“…One isolate (8412468) appeared to be identical to Adlp with SmaI and EcoRI but showed a deviating fragment pattern with BamHI. It was presumptively identified as an Ad1 variant, denominated 1# and found to be similar to that described by Hammond et al [1985] for strains 6984 and 2683.…”

Adenoviruses in the immunocompromised host.

“…The DNA is then cut into fragments that are 4 to 7 nucleotides long, depending on the endonuclease used, and the fragments are separated by gel electrophoresis, stained with ethidium bromide, and visualized under UV light. A large selection of endonucleases derived from various bacteria and fungi are now available, and most studies employ 6 to 10 enzymes to show genome variant groupings and relationships among strains (2, 13,25,27,36,43,45,49,52,53,60,103,120,121,126,127,132).…”

Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens

“…Both the EIA and EM results suggest that the enteric Ads are more often present in amounts that are detectable by these techniques. Of the EIA-positive specimens, 21 demonstrated restriction patterns of a variant strain of Ad41 (Hammond et al, 1985). The remaining eight Ad40/41 type-specific enteric EIA-positive specimens could not be cultured in 293 cells.…”

“…Nonenteric Ads detectable by EM included serotypes 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 31. Two isolates of Ad31 (one Ad31 variant) were also identified, which have been implicated in diarrheal disease (Brown, 1990;Hammond et al, 1985), which produce clinical symptoms similar to enteric Ad (Krajden et al, 1990). Enteric Ad was detectable in 28% (29) of the 105 Ad-positive specimens, 21 of which were confirmed analysis, previously reported (Hammond et al, t 1985).…”