Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 20, Number 6—June 2014

Letter

Bufavirus in Feces of Patients with Gastroenteritis, Finland

Elina Väisänen, Inka Kuisma, Tung G. Phan, Eric Delwart, Maija Lappalainen, Eveliina Tarkka, Klaus Hedman, and Maria Söderlund-Venermo
Author affiliations: Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (E. Väisänen, I. Kuisma, K. Hedman, M. Söderlund-Venermo); Blood Systems Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA (T.G. Phan, E. Delwart); University of California, San Francisco (T.G. Phan, E. Delwart); Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki (M. Lappalainen, E. Tarkka, K. Hedman)

Main Article

Table

Samples collected for bacterial and viral testing that were subsequently positive for bufavirus DNA*

Sample no. Sample cohort Quantity, copies/mL supernatant Age, y/sex Pathogens tested for by HUSLAB† Other pathogens found Sampling date Sequenced region, nt, divergence (%) from JX027295‡
1 Bacterial 5.2 × 103 21/M Bacteria 0 2012 Dec 4 VP2, 2786–4495, 0.88
2 Bacterial 1.9 ×104 38/M Bacteria 0 2013 Jan 6 VP2, 2786–4495, 0.71
Bacterial 1.9 × 103 53/M Bacteria 0 2013 Jan 11 §
4 Bacterial 3.7 × 103 46/M Bacteria 0 2013 Apr 27 VP2, 2786–4495, 0.76
5 Viral 3.4 × 103 77/M Norovirus 0 2013 Apr 19 VP2, 2786–4495, 1.60
Viral 3.6 × 103 89/F Norovirus 0 2013 Apr 20 Partial NS, 16–1080, 1.13

Viral
3.2 × 104
89/F
Norovirus
Norovirus
2013 Apr 23
VP2, 2786–4495, 1.36
*VP2, viral protein 2; NS, nonstructural.
†Samples originally sent to HUSLAB (Helsinki, Finland) for bacterial diagnosis were analyzed for Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Campylobacter spp., Yersinia spp., Vibrio cholerae, and Escherichia coli (subtypes enterohemorraghic, enteropatogena, enterotoxigenic, and enteroagregative) by using culture or PCR. Bufavirus-positive samples could not be analyzed for the presence of pathogens other than those originally tested for because the samples had been discarded. 
‡Sequence divergence analyzed by using the DNA distance matrix in BioEdit (www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html). The bufavirus sequences were submitted to GenBank (accession nos. KJ461874–KJ461879).
§This sample was positive for bufavirus by quantitative PCR. However, we were not able to amplify another region of the virus from this sample, likely caused by a low amount of the virus in the sample, which had the lowest copy number among the positive samples.
¶Samples from the same patient, collected 4 days apart.

Main Article

TOP