Random-source DNA samples obtained from naturally infected laboratory mice (n=381) were evaluated by PCR and RFLP analysis to determine the prevalence of murine parvovirus strains circulating in contemporary laboratory mouse colonies. Mouse parvovirus (MPV) was detected in 77 % of samples, Minute virus of mice (MVM) was detected in 16 % of samples and both MVM and MPV were detected in 7 % of samples. MVMm, a strain recently isolated from clinically ill NOD-m chain knockout mice, was detected in 91 % of MVM-positive samples, with the Cutter strain of MVM (MVMc) detected in the remaining samples. The prototypic and immunosuppressive strains of MVM were not detected in any of the samples. MPV-1 was detected in 78 % of the MPV-positive samples and two newly identified murine parvoviruses, tentatively named MPV-2 and MPV-3, were detected in 21 and 1 % of the samples, respectively. The DNA sequence encompassing coding regions of the viral genome and the predicted protein sequences for MVMm, MPV-2 and MPV-3 were determined and compared with those of other rodent parvovirus strains and LuIII parvovirus. The genomic organization for the newly identified viral strains was similar to that of other rodent parvoviruses, and nucleotide sequence identities indicated that MVMm was most similar to MVMc (96?1 %), MPV-3 was most similar to hamster parvovirus (HaPV) (98?1 %) and MPV-2 was most similar to MPV-1 (95?3 %). The genetic similarity of MPV-3 and HaPV suggests that HaPV epizootics in hamsters may result from cross-species transmission, with mice as the natural rodent host for this virus.
INTRODUCTIONMinute virus of mice (MVM) and mouse parvovirus (MPV) are among the most prevalent infectious agents detected in contemporary laboratory mouse colonies, with approximately 45 % of USA research institutions harbouring these infectious agents (Jacoby et al., 1996) and MPV being among the most prevalent viruses detected in research mice (Livingston & Riley, 2003). Various clinical disease syndromes in mice have been associated with MVM infection (Brownstein et al., 1991;Kimsey et al., 1986;Lamana et al., 2001;Segovia et al., 1991Segovia et al., , 1995Segovia et al., , 1999 and both MVM and MPV can have deleterious effects on research due to in vitro and in vivo immunomodulatory effects (Bonnard et al., 1976;Engers et al., 1981;Kimsey et al., 1986;McKisic et al., 1993McKisic et al., , 1996McMaster et al., 1981), tumour suppression (Giese et al., 2000;Guetta et al., 1986;Kimsey et al., 1986;McKisic et al., 1993McKisic et al., , 1996 and contamination of cell cultures and tissues originating from mice (Bonnard et al., 1976;Collins & Parker, 1972;Crawford et al., 1969;Garnick, 1996Garnick, , 1998McKisic et al., 1993;Nicklas et al., 1993). There is also significant potential for MVM and MPV to be transmitted among research facilities due to a high degree of environmental stability (Harris et al., 1974), their potential to induce persistent infection in mice and cell lines (Fikrig & Tattersall, 1992;Jacoby et al., 1995;Segovia et al....