Abstract:Research on polyomaviruses began in 1953 when Ludwik Gross isolated a filterable agent that induced tumours in newborn mice. This agent became the archetypal member of the
Polyomaviridae
family. In 1971, JC virus and BK virus were reported and named after the patients’ initials. More than 30 years passed before the Karolinska Institute virus and Washington University virus were identified from respiratory samples in paediatric patients. The Merkel cell polyomavirus was identified in… Show more
“…Eleven different human polyomaviruses have been isolated so far (38). To determine whether TLR9 downregulation is common to most human polyomaviruses, we cloned early gene regions from four additional human polyomaviruses (BKPyV, JCPyV, WUPyV, and KIPyV) and simian virus 40 (SV40) into the retroviral vector pLXSN or into the pcDNA3 expression vector.…”
Section: Fig 2 Tlr9 Signaling Is Altered By Mcpyv In Epithelial Cellsmentioning
“…Eleven different human polyomaviruses have been isolated so far (38). To determine whether TLR9 downregulation is common to most human polyomaviruses, we cloned early gene regions from four additional human polyomaviruses (BKPyV, JCPyV, WUPyV, and KIPyV) and simian virus 40 (SV40) into the retroviral vector pLXSN or into the pcDNA3 expression vector.…”
Section: Fig 2 Tlr9 Signaling Is Altered By Mcpyv In Epithelial Cellsmentioning
BackgroundThe BK Polyomavirus (BKPyV) and JC polyomavirus (JCPyV) infections are widespread in human population and have been associated with severe kidney and brain disorders, respectively. The viruses remain latent primarily in reno-urinary tract, reactivating only in case of a compromised immune system. The seroepidemiology and molecular prevalence of BKPyV and JCPyV have been widely studied both in healthy and immunocompromised patients worldwide. However, data regarding the prevalence of these viruses in the immunocompetent or apparently healthy Pakistani population is lacking. Herein, we present the first ever report on quantitative prevalence of BKPyV and JCPyV in the peripheral blood of a randomly selected cohort of healthy Pakistani population.MethodsA total of 266 whole blood samples were examined. The subjects were divided into three age groups: ≤ 25 years (young), 26–50 years (middle) and ≥ 51 years (elder). Absolute real time PCR assay was designed to quantify the BKPyV and JCPyV viral copy numbers in the range of 106 to 100 copies/mL.ResultsOverall, BKPyV was detected in 27.1% (72/266) individuals while JCPyV in 11.6% (31/266) indicating significant difference (p < 0.005) in the distribution of these two viruses. The prevalence of BKPyV significantly decreased from 51% (49/96) in young age group to 8.2% (7/85) in eldest age group. Whereas, JCPyV positivity rate slightly increased from 8.3% (8/96) in young age group to 11.8% (10/85) in elder age group. The median viral load was calculated as 6.2 log and 3.38 log copies/mL of blood for BKPyV and JCPyV, respectively. Notably, no significant difference in viral load of either of the subtypes was found between different age groups.ConclusionThe current study provides an important baseline data on the prevalence and viral load of circulating BKPyV and JCPyV in Pakistani population. The prevalence and viral load of BKPyV was comparatively higher than JCPyV. The prevalence of BKPyV significantly decreased with increase in age while JCPyV positivity rate slightly increased with increasing age. Viral load of both BKPyV and JCPyV was not correlated with the individual ages.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12985-017-0752-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.