Isolation of a human pararotavirus

Nicolas, Jean‐Claude; Cohen, Jean; Fortier, B; Lourenço, Maria Helena; Bricout, F

doi:10.1016/0042-6822(83)90302-1

Cited by 78 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…So far all atypical human rotavirus strains appear from published electrophoretypes to fall within the group C rotaviruses (Rodger et al, 1982;Dimitrov et al, 1983;Nicolas et al, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, however, viruses with characteristic rotavirus morphology which nevertheless lack this group antigen have been described from piglets (Bohl et al, 1982;Bridger et al, 1982), chickens (McNulty et al, 1981), and children (Rodger et al, 1982;Dimitrov et al, 1983;Nicolas et al, 1983). Although these antigenically distinct rotaviruses have 11 segments of dsRNA, their genome segment electrophoretic migration patterns are consistently different from those of conventional rotaviruses, and terminal fingerprint analysis also distinguishes the segments of the atypical rotaviruses (Pedley et al, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Atypical Rotaviruses from Calves, Piglets, Lambs and Man

Snodgrass

Herring

Campbell

et al. 1984

Journal of General Virology

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSome rotaviruses from calves, piglets, and lambs were detected by electron microscopic examination of faeces but not by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay which relies on detection of group antigen. On further examination by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, these viruses had 11 segments of dsRNA, as had typical rotaviruses, but arranged in atypical patterns. From humans, three rotaviruses with atypical electrophoretypes were also detected. Gnotobiotic animals were infected with atypical calf, piglet and lamb rotaviruses, and used to provide antigen and antiserum for an immunofluorescent comparison of these rotaviruses with conventional rotaviruses and other previously described atypical rotaviruses from piglets and chickens. Two atypical rotaviruses from humans failed to infect gnotobiotic piglets. The atypical rotaviruses could be tentatively categorized into two groups serologically distinct from each other and from conventional rotaviruses, and these distinctions were consistent with electrophoretypes. The atypical chicken rotavirus may form a fourth distinct group. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that rotaviruses belong to at least four separate groups definable by serology and electrophoretype.

show abstract

“…So far all atypical human rotavirus strains appear from published electrophoretypes to fall within the group C rotaviruses (Rodger et al, 1982;Dimitrov et al, 1983;Nicolas et al, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Atypical Rotaviruses from Calves, Piglets, Lambs and Man

Snodgrass

Herring

Campbell

et al. 1984

Journal of General Virology

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These more newly discovered viruses are morphologically indistinguishable from other rotaviruses in that they consist of a doubleshelled icosahedran containing 11 genome segments of dsRNA; however, they have an electrophoretic pattern that differs from that of known rotaviruses. These agents have been called "rotavirus like," (170,305) "antigenically distinct rotaviruses," (81, 101) "pararotaviruses," (24,105,270) "atypical" rotaviruses (285,286), and "novel" rotaviruses (171). More recently, Pedley et al (285), studying atypical porcine rotaviruses, introduced the designation group A, B, C, etc., analogous to influenza virus terminology.…”

Section: Molecular Biology and Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, various rotaviruses have been isolated from humans and animals that do not possess that common group antigen originally reported by Flewett and Woode (113,399). Rotavirus strains lacking the common group antigen have been isolated from humans, cows, lambs, pigs, rats, and birds (34,73,81,105,124,270,305). These more newly discovered viruses are morphologically indistinguishable from other rotaviruses in that they consist of a doubleshelled icosahedran containing 11 genome segments of dsRNA; however, they have an electrophoretic pattern that differs from that of known rotaviruses.…”

Section: Molecular Biology and Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human viral gastroenteritis

Christensen

1989

Clin Microbiol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last 15 years, several different groups of fastidious viruses that are responsible for a large proportion of acute viral gastroenteritis cases have been discovered by the electron microscopic examination of stool specimens. This disease is one of the most prevalent and serious clinical syndromes seen around the world, especially in children. Rotaviruses, in the family Reoviridae, and fastidious fecal adenoviruses account for much of the viral gastroenteritis in infants and young children, whereas the small caliciviruses and unclassified astroviruses, and possibly enteric coronaviruses, are responsible for significantly fewer cases overall. In addition to electron microscopy, enzyme immunoassays and other rapid antigen detection systems have been developed to detect rotaviruses and fastidious fecal adenoviruses in the stool specimens of both nonhospitalized patients and those hospitalized for dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Experimental rotavirus vaccines have also been developed, due to the prevalence and seriousness of rotavirus infection. The small, unclassified Norwalk virus and morphologically similar viruses are responsible for large and small outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis in older children, adolescents, and adults. Hospitalization of older patients infected with these viruses is usually not required, and their laboratory diagnoses have been limited primarily to research laboratories.

show abstract

“…immunosorbent blocking assay, the existence of antigenically distinct rotaviruses lacking the common rotavirus group antigen has been recognised in humans (Dimitrov et al, 1983;Nicolas et al, 1983;Snodgrass et al, 1984), piglets (Saif et al, 1980;Bridger et al, 1982;Bohl et al, 1982;Pedley et al, 1983;Snodgrass et al, 1984;Bridger and Brown, 1985), calves and lambs (Snodgrass et al, 1984). Our isolate F-29 strain appears to lack the common rotavirus group antigen.…”

Section: Text-fig 2 Neutralising Antibody Titres Of Field Ducks (60mentioning

confidence: 99%