Oncogenic papillomavirus and polyomavirus in urban sewage in Egypt

Prevalence of human polyomavirus and papillomavirus in wastewater and in stool of Egyptian patients

“…On the other hand, the present study showed that human papillomaviruses were identified in 24.4% of sewage samples and 28.3% of fecal samples with the presence only one mucosal genotype HPV-16 which is mainly isolated from anal, colon and cervical cancers. These findings are relatively similar with the data reported in La Rosa et al, (2013), Di Bonito et al, (2015), Yu, et al, (2015, Loutfy et al, (2017), and Hamza et al, (2018). Therefore, the present study recommends that the fecal samples are the main source of human papillomaviruses in sewage samples and this is agreeing with report of Di which identified HPVs in fecal samples.…”

“…For viral quantitative study, the difference between viral load in sewage samples before (10 4 GC\L) and after (10 3 GC\L) treatment was only one log, while the viral load of HPyV in stool samples (10 7 GC\L) was one to two folds more than the inlet effluent. These concentrations for wastewater samples are relatively similar to the findings of the previously reports conducted in sewage (Hamza et al, 2014;Rusinol et al, 2015;Hamza et al, 2018) and conducted also in stool (Vanchiere et al, 2009).…”

“…Comparing to many studies that reported a high level of dissemination of HPyVs among a panel of different human-associated microbes in different water and wastewater samples (McQuaig et al, 2009;Fumian et al, 2010;Fumian et al, 2013;Hewitt et al, 2013;Hamza et al, 2014;Kitajima et al, 2014); our results revealed that the presence of HPyV was 79% (71/90) in wastewater samples. These findings were slightly higher than Hamza et al, (2018) who reported that HPyV was detected in 72% (48/66), of Egyptian wastewater as which might be attributed to the larger volume of our collected samples. Similarly, there was a marginal difference in HPyVs detection rate obtained in our study with that reported by Bo fill-Mas et al (2013) that can be justified by several factors including different geographical area, enrichment process, and sensitivity of PCR assay.…”

“…(Rusinol et al, 2015) in Spain, who detected HPyV in raw and treated wastewater as 7.5x10 5 GC/L and 1.6x10 5 GC/L, respectively. In another study from Egypt by Hamza et al, (2018); HPyVs viral load was detected as 10 5 GC/L in the influent's samples. Regarding to our results HPyVs viral load in the treated effluent was one to two magnitudes lower than the raw water and this reflect deficiency of wastewater treatment plant in removing all viral loads during municipal treatment process.…”

“…These outcomes in both sewage and stool samples are similar to the findings of the previously reports conducted in Egypt or worldwide, which demonstrated that this virus is highly abundant in sewage as well as stool samples. Moreover, the virus may reach wastewaters as a result of shedding in feces which support its probability to be transmitted via fecal-oral route (Hamza et al, 2018;Iaconelli et al, 2015;La Rosa et al, 2015;Kitajima et al, 2014;Vanchiere et al, 2009;Vanchiere et al, 2005). Indeed, 83.3%, 53.3% and 100% of raw wastewater, treated effluent and activated sludge samples were positive for HPyV, respectively.…”