The study demonstrates broad genetic heterogeneity of porcine group A rotavirus strains in Ohio swine herds, with G9P[13] being the predominant genotype.
Warrants enhanced RVA surveillance in US swine; leaves open questions on transmission dynamics and control.
Epidemiological surveillance of porcine group A rotavirus (RVA) strains was conducted in five swine herds in Ohio using historical (2004) and recent (2011 to 2012) fecal samples. Of the 371 samples examined, 9.4% (35/371) were positive for RVA. The RVA detection rates increased from 5.9% in 2004 and 8.5% in 2011 to 13.8% in 2012. A total of 23 positive samples were analyzed for RVA G and P genotypes. The dominant G-P combination was G9P[13] found in 60.9% of positive samples. The other combinations were G9P[7] (8.7%), G4P[13] (8.7%), G11P[13] (4.3%), and G11P[7] (4.3%). Sequence analysis of partial VP7 genes of selected strains revealed that the G4 strains were closely related to one another (95%) and, to a lesser extent, to human (82 to 84%) and porcine (84 to 86%) G4 strains. The G11 strains detected shared identical VP7 gene sequences (100%) and were closely related to human (85 to 86%) and other porcine (83%) G11 strains. The G9 strains identified were closely related to one another and to human and other porcine strains (96 to 97%, 89 to 91%, and 89 to 91% nucleotide identities, respectively). The VP4 gene analysis revealed that P[7] strains were closely related to each other and to P[7] strains isolated from porcine, bovine, and panda samples (91 to 99%, 92 to 99% and 92 to 99%, respectively). The P[13] strains showed a higher diversity among themselves and with other porcine P[13] strains, ranging from 83% to 99% and from 82 to 97%, respectively. Our results demonstrate broad genetic heterogeneity of the RVA strains and suggest the possibility of genetic reassortment between different RVA genotypes within these farms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amimo et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: