Porcine pararotavirus: Detection, differentiation from rotavirus, and pathogenesis in gnotobiotic pigs

127Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Some characteristics of a newly reorganized porcine enteric virus are described. Tentatively, the virus was referred to as porcine pararotavirus (PaRV) because it resembled rotaviruses in respect to size, morphology, and tropism for villous enterocytes of the small intestine. However, it was antigenically distinct from porcine, human, and bovine rotaviruses and reoviruses 1, 2, and 3, and the electrophoretic migration pattern of PaRV double-stranded RNA was distinct from the electrophoretic migration patterns of the rotaviral and reoviral genomes. By passage in gnotobiotic pigs, PaRV was isolated from two suckling diarrheic pigs originating from two herds. After oral exposure of gnotobiotic pigs, villous enterocytes of the small intestines became infected as judged by immunofluorescence, resulting in villous atrophy and diarrhea. Mortality was high when gnotobiotic pigs less than 5 days old were infected. The C strain of this virus was serially passed 10 times in gnotobiotic pigs, and electron microscopy, immunofluorescence, and serological tests indicated no extraneous agents. The virus was serially passed five times in cell cultures which contained pancreatin in the medium, but replication was negligible or absent, as the number of immunofluorescent cells decreased with each passage. Since rotaviral infections are frequently diagnosed by direct electron microscopy of fecal specimens, the presence of other morphologically similar viruses, such as PaRV, should be considered. The use of immune electron microscopy is suggested as a means of helping recognize this situation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bohl, E. H., Saif, L. J., Theil, K. W., Agnes, A. G., & Cross, R. F. (1982). Porcine pararotavirus: Detection, differentiation from rotavirus, and pathogenesis in gnotobiotic pigs. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 15(2), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.15.2.312-319.1982

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free