Caliciviruses in Man

Madeley, C. R.; Cosgrove, B.

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(76)91309-x

Cited by 153 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the interesting observations from our structural studies is that the capsid structure of rPV, despite being a human calicivirus of the genus Sapovirus, is more similar to SMSV4, an animal calicivirus in the genus Vesivirus, than to either rNV or rGrV, which are both human pathogens of the genus Norovirus. Such an observation, which is indeed in agreement with previous negative stain studies (17,37) and sequence comparison results (38), indicates a closer relationship between sapoviruses and animal caliciviruses. The striking similarity between sapoviruses and animal caliciviruses is also suggestive of possible zoonoses of caliciviruses emerging from marine and animal reservoirs.…”

Section: Vol 78 2004 Structural Variations In Caliciviruses 6475supporting

confidence: 92%

Inter- and Intragenus Structural Variations in Caliciviruses and Their Functional Implications

Chen¹,

Neill

Noel

et al. 2004

J Virol

125

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The family Caliciviridae is divided into four genera and consists of single-stranded RNA viruses with hosts ranging from humans to a wide variety of animals. Human caliciviruses are the major cause of outbreaks of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis, whereas animal caliciviruses cause various host-dependent illnesses with a documented potential for zoonoses. To investigate inter-and intragenus structural variations and to provide a better understanding of the structural basis of host specificity and strain diversity, we performed structural studies of the recombinant capsid of Grimsby virus, the recombinant capsid of Parkville virus, and San Miguel sea lion virus serotype 4 (SMSV4), which are representative of the genera Norovirus (genogroup 2), Sapovirus, and Vesivirus, respectively. A comparative analysis of these structures was performed with that of the recombinant capsid of Norwalk virus, a prototype member of Norovirus genogroup 1. Although these capsids share a common architectural framework of 90 dimers of the capsid protein arranged on a T‫3؍‬ icosahedral lattice with a modular domain organization of the subunit consisting of a shell (S) domain and a protrusion (P) domain, they exhibit distinct differences. The distally located P2 subdomain of P shows the most prominent differences both in shape and in size, in accordance with the observed sequence variability. Another major difference is in the relative orientation between the S and P domains, particularly between those of noroviruses and other caliciviruses. Despite being a human pathogen, the Parkville virus capsid shows more structural similarity to SMSV4, an animal calicivirus, suggesting a closer relationship between sapoviruses and animal caliciviruses. These comparative structural studies of caliciviruses provide a functional rationale for the unique modular domain organization of the capsid protein with an embedded flexibility reminiscent of an antibody structure. The highly conserved S domain functions to provide an icosahedral scaffold; the hypervariable P2 subdomain may function as a replaceable module to confer host specificity and strain diversity; and the P1 subdomain, located between S and P2, provides additional fine-tuning to position the P2 subdomain.

show abstract

Section: Vol 78 2004 Structural Variations In Caliciviruses 6475supporting

confidence: 92%

Inter- and Intragenus Structural Variations in Caliciviruses and Their Functional Implications

Chen¹,

Neill

Noel

et al. 2004

J Virol

125

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the different infectious agents involved in the pathogenesis of disease, rotavirus plays a major role accounting for more than 50 % of hospitalized cases in peak months (Kapikian et al 1976;Konno et al 1978). In addition to rotaviruses, several other candidate aetiological viral agents are known, including enteric adenoviruses (Albert, 1986), astroviruses (Madeley & Cosgrove, 1975), calicivirus (Madeley & Cosgrove, 1976), coronavirus (Caul, Paver & Clarke, 1975), the Norwalk group of viruses (Kapikian et al 1982) and other 20-30 nm diameter small round viruses (Flewett, Bryden & Davies, 1974; Middleton, Szymanski & Petric, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A three-year diagnostic and epidemiological study on viral infantile diarrhoea in Rome

et al. 1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYRotavirus infection was demonstrated in 168 (293 %) of 573 children hospitalized for acute diarrhoea in Rome between January 1982 and December 1984. Laboratory diagnosis of these infections was made by transmission electron microscopy and enzyme immunoassay techniques with an overall agreement of 91-3%. Astroviruses, adenoviruses and small round viruses were detected in the faeces of 36 patients (6'4 %). Whereas in 1982 rotavirus positive patients were clustered in the winter and following spring, in the following years cases were recorded all year round. The median age of patients with rotavirus infections was 17, 10 and 11.5 months in 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively. In addition, a smaller number of rotavirus positive cases were admitted in 1983 when compared to those admitted during the previous as well as the subsequent years. It is suggested that a herd immunity was induced in the population by epidemic spread of rotavirus in the first half of 1982.

show abstract

“…This has led to the discovery of a number of previously unrecognised viruses. Most of these are difficult to isolate using conventional cell culture techniques and they include rotaviruses (Mebus etal., 1969;Flewett etal., 1973;McNulty, 1978),enteric coronaviruses (Stair etal, 1972;Bass and Sharpee, 1975;Chasey and Cartwright, 1978;Pensaert and De Bouck, 1978;Tzipori et al, 1978), astro viruses (Madeley and Cosgrove, 1975;Snodgrass and Gray, 1977;Woode and Bridger, 1978), enteric caliciviruses (Madeley and Cosgrove, 1976;Woode and Bridger, 1978) and mini-reoviruses (Middleton et al, 1977). Surprisingly, this technique has apparently been ignored in avian virology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%