During the first 4 weeks of life "common cold" viruses occur frequently and can make your little one sick....

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on Wordpress.

You can get to this specific post by clicking on the link below...

http://virologydownunder.com/during-the-first-4-weeks-of-life-common-cold-viruses-occur-frequently-and-can-make-your-little-one-sick

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Rhinoviruses (RVs)...a primer

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on Wordpress.

You can get to this specific post by clicking on the link below...

https://virologydownunder.com/rhinoviruses-rvs-a-primer/

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Respiratory viruses: the viruses we detect in the human respiratory tract

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on Wordpress.

You can get to this specific post by clicking on the link below...
 
https://virologydownunder.com/respiratory-viruses-the-viruses-we-detect-in-the-human-respiratory-tract/

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Wheezing after respiratory virus infection...

Takeyama and colleagues from Japan delved into the viruses present among young children (≤ 3-years of age) hospitalized with a clinically defined lower respiratory tract infection.

This exemplifies what many such studies do; sample from the upper respiratory tract to find signs of replicating virus in order to study a disease of the lower respiratory tract. 

It's a stretch but if you go along with it you are implying that an upper respiratory tract infection either triggers the symptoms from afar or that the virus travels into the lower respiratory tract to directly cause inflammation and/or cell destruction.

Viruses were detected by PCR-based methods.

Some key findings...

• Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was the virus detected most often (51/102 samples from 153 children) in children who were admitted with wheezing followed by rhinoviruses (RV; 21 or 14%), RSV+RV (12 or 8%) and then parainfluenza virus 3 (PIV3; 8 or 5%), influenza virus (IFV; 5 or 3%) or human metapneumovirus (hMPV; 5 or 3%)
• A similar pattern was observed in 259 children who were admitted without wheezing (RSV-25%; RV 9%; IFV 7%; RSV+RV-4%; PIV3-3%; hMPV-1%)
• 67% of children with wheezing were virus positive (POS)
• Children with an allergic predisposition (IgE antibody levels >30IU/mL at admission and a parental history of asthma) POS for RSV more often had wheezing later
• Children who were wheezing & RV POS when they were admitted were more likely to wheeze again than were those who were RV POS without wheeze at admission.

So [allergic predisposition + RSV] or [wheeze/clinical severity + RV] were 2 factors related to subsequent wheeze.

The authors also raised the spectre of RV positivity occurring in asymptomatic individuals in other studies. However, that can happen to some extent with all respiratory viruses. No other virus has 160 distinct type like the RVs...but that's another story.

Article...

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24535712

Little rhino...

To the tune of ‘I’m a little teapot’

I’m a little rhino,

Strain in doubt

Bind with my canyon

Bind without

When I’ve replicated

Just the right amount

You’ll need to get a tissue to blow me out

[alternate: exacerbate your wheezing and cough me out]

Thanks to Cassandra Faux for putting this one together back in 2007.

Randall the red-nosed toddler...

To the tune of Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer

Randall the red-nosed toddler
Had a very runny nose 
Asthma exacerbation 
Fever adding to his woes 

All of the other toddlers 
Didn't have immunity 
They all came down with symptoms 
Differing in severity 

Then one group of researchers 
Virus-hunting was their game 
Swabbed, extracted, amplified
A rhino POS of course was spied 

Randall’s rhino was sequenced 
Turned out to be rhino C
Randall the red-nosed toddler
Just a 'common' cold indeed!

Randall the red-nosed toddler

Had a very runny nose 
Asthma exacerbation 
Fever adding to his woes 


Thanks to Katherine Arden and Cassandra Faux for helping me put these together back in 2008.

A new rhino type is coming to town...[corrected]

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on Wordpress.

You can get to this specific post by clicking on the link below...
 
http://virologydownunder.com/memories/

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Rhinovirus transmission by aerosol and lower respiratory tract disease after inoculation

In the next instalment to answer the question posed in last week's post, we also find that rhinovirus can a lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), if it is delivered directly to the site; several issues around this topic are contentious in current age of PCR diagnosis of lower respiratory tract disease using specimens from the upper respiratory tract (URT).

From Thomas R. Cate et al, Am J Epidemiol.

Author: Thomas R Cate et al
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol 81(1):95-105
Year: 1965
RV type used: NIH 1734 (RV-A15¹)
RV receptor type: major group; ICAM-I

This study set out to investigate the impact of RV on the lower respiratory tract.

Key features of the study layout..

• 16 healthy adult male inmate volunteers
• Safety-tested preparation of RV-15
• 6 volunteers given 1ml nasopharyngeal serum-inactivated virus via a hand atomizer (coarse droplets expected to mainly deposit in the upper respiratory tract), and 1ml instilled intransally by pipette with subject lying on back
• 8, RV-15-antibody-free volunteers were exposed to 10l of air (16, 20 or 66 TCID₅₀ RV15), via a mask, containing 15-second-old 0.2-3.0um particles generated from a Collison atomizer (see Figure)
• A number of re-inoculations were also performed on each virus-delivery group
• Aerosols was also sampled using a Shipe impinger (this device contained cell culture medium onto which some aerosol was impacted) for virus isolation, after storage at -70°C. These data determined the dose that had been used
• Prior (2-days) to inoculation, nasal, pharyngeal and anal swab specimens and 10ml of nasopharyngeal wash (NPW) were collected, frozen at -20°C for testing to identify pre-existing viruses or bacteria (all culture based). The same specimen types were collected after inoculation (minus the anal swab). RV culture was conducted on human embryonic fibroblast cultures, with rotation at 33°C)

Key results included...

• Only 1 other virus, apart form RV-15, was found in the subjects. Culture may have missed fastidious or unculturable respiratory viruses (like the RV-Cs) however.
• During the 1st week after inoculation, usually starting from day-2..
• NPWs contained culturable virus in at least 1 specimen from 8/8 subjects
• During the 2nd week after inoculation..
• 7/8 subjects gave virus-positive NPWs
• During the 3rd week after inoculation..
• 5/8 subjects gave intermittent virus-positive NPWs
• Maximal virus titre aligned in time with most severe illness
• Nasal and pharyngeal swabs specimens did not yield virus as often as NPWs
• All subjects had a rise in antibody titre of 4-fold or greater, indicating infection, by 3-weeks with a further bump after 4-5-weeks
• Tracheobronchitis was diagnosed in 6/8 antibody-free aerosol-inoculated volunteers. This is a lower respiratory tract disease.
• Signs and symptoms included cough (sometimes in fits), substernal chest pain,, wheezing, tender trachea.
• 3 had a primary diagnosis of tracheobronchitis , the other 3 also had a prominent coryzal illness (nasal obstruction/discharge, sneezing, sore throat, swollen neck lymph nodes). 
• Fever was determined in 5/8, within the 1st 1-2-days.
• Signs and symptoms lasted for 1-4 days, a little longer for a rhinitis-alone
• No tracheobronchitis developed among 31 antibody-free volunteers inoculated through a course spray/drop method into the nasopharynx
• No infection (no suitable rise in antibody) or illness was detected among 6 volunteers inoculated with a preparation of virus that had first been inactivated by incubation with an antibody-positive serum. This identified that there were no other viruses/bacteria in the preparation that could have caused the disease. This had been, infrequently, found in other preparations by the authors so this step was important part of their comprehensive approach.
• 4-weeks later, 2 volunteers from the aerosol infection group, 2 from the inactivated virus group, and 2 new volunteers, were (re-)inoculated
• No infection, illness or virus shedding resulted in the aerosol pair
• No illness but infection and shedding occurred in the pair previously inoculated with inactivated virus
• Infection, illness and shedding were apparent in the new volunteer pair
• Neutrophil counts were significantly raised in aerosol-inoculated volunteers at illness onset and also, but to a lesser extent, in the 6 volunteers given inactivated virus. This explains to me why in those with a predisposition to severe RV outcomes, including those with asthma, a symptomatic RV infection is not necessary to trigger an attack.

The authors concluded...

• The aerosols generated here, which carried relatively small amounts of virus, would likely travel beyond the nasopharynx and tracheobronchial tree and be carried into the lungs, probably with <50% deposited and the remainder exhaled
• No evidence of pneumonia was found
• If RV is suitably aerosolized in sufficiently small particles, inhalation can result in lower respiratory tract disease while site-specific installation into the upper respiratory tract usually results a typical URTI or "common cold"

How do these findings translate to everyday exposures to RV coughs and sneezes and in children? In the general community we are constantly exposed to virus and have a complex, person-specific panoply of antibodies resulting from different infections beginning in childhood. This is probably why we are incapacitated by bad colds and LRTIs all the time! An addendum in the discussion of Cate's paper highlights how symptoms resulting from RV infection are best considered as part of the entire spectrum of possible outcomes. 

Previous symptomatic infection, as shown above, protects from lower respiratory tract disease hence adults are less likely to have LRTIs than children who see these viruses for the first time. Also, there is literature showing that the antibody to some RVs can protect against, or moderate, disease due to infection by other RVs. If you are antibody-free, then disease can potentially be more severe.

Cate's studies are all conducted without knowledge of the 50+ RV-Cs because they could not be grown (detected) using the cells employed by the culture methods of the day. Why is that relevant? Because some consider RV-Cs to be more asthmagenic/pathogenic and because we don't know the receptor or natural tissue tropism/distribution of the RV-Cs in humans. How the RV-Cs perform in human volunteer infections is unknown.

Certainly room remains for some new research building upon excellent studies like this one by Cate et al and highlighting (a) that RV can infect the lungs and cause disease if an aerosol is encountered and (b), that one outcome from RV infection does not fit all.

Further reading and references...

1. First HRV nomenclature assignment publication
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5078/pdf/213761a0.pdf

Rhinovirus (RV) transmission by aerosol: does it happen or is transmission solely by hand-contact and self-inoculation?

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on WordPress.

You can access this specific post by clicking the link below...
 
https://virologydownunder.com/rhinovirus-rv-transmission-by-aerosol-does-it-happen-or-is-transmission-solely-by-hand-contact-and-self-inoculation/

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

RSV retreated, flu fading, parainfluenza picking up: Queensland respiratory virus numbers up to Week 45, 2013

If you like to keep track of influenza cases in Queensland, Australia, then the Queensland Government's Queensland Health (QH) influenza data website is for you.

It's a great place to drop by and check out the comings and goings of influenza viruses and many of the other traditional respiratory viruses including adenoviruses (AdVs), parainfluenzaviruses (PIVs) 1, 2 and 3, human metapneumovirus (MPV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) - the "Big8". Testing is not routinely conducted for the rhinoviruses (RVs).

The snippet below is from data that are publicly reported on the QH website. These images cover to the week beginning 3rd of November (up to Sunday, Nov 10th, 2013).

The charts highlight that the 2013 flu season is winding down in Australia, also reflected by the WHO global updates. This year flu followed on from what seemed to have been a large RSV season. Unfortunately I couldn't find data for this same time period last year to compare RSV prevalence.

In the wake of influenzavirus season, the parainfluenzaviruses are now on the rise in the lead up to summer. I expect the RVs (and enteroviruses) are also climbing, but in greater numbers.

Click to enlarge. 
A snippet from the Queensland Health Statewide Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report for 01.01.2013-10.11.2013

My thanks to the team at the Communicable Diseases Unit, Queensland Health.

The source of these data  can be read in full..

• http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/cdb/sru_influenza.asp
• WHO global influenza update http://www.who.int/influenza/surveillance_monitoring/updates/latest_update_GIP_surveillance/en/

Happy Birthday rhinoviruses (RVs) - 60 years old today!

This post has been moved to the new Virology Down Under platform on WordPress.

You can access this specific post by clicking the link below...
 
https://virologydownunder.com/happy-60th-birthday-rhinoviruses/

Please adjust your bookmarks.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

A drug to stop rhinovirus (HRV) infections in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)?

For those who don't know, the HRVs are the most frequent infecting agents (that we know of) of the human upper (and perhaps lower but that work is not done) respiratory tract (URT).The first HRV was isolated in 1953 in the UK and the viruses were soon burdened by the label "common cold viruses". This was largely because early studies were conducted in adults who generally have milder outcomes.
There are about 77 genetically distinct HRV-As, 60 HRV-Cs and 30 HRV-Bs - that's nearly 170 distinct viruses (includes serotypes and genotypes)! Imagine 170 distinct coronaviruses.

In the past they were classified by the type of cell they infected/receptor they used into major (most of them used ICAM-I as the receptor) and minor (the rest; use VLDL-R as the receptor) groups. Sequencing is the preferred method to classify them today.

The receptor for the HRV-Cs remains unknown and they do not grow in routine cell lines instead needing more advanced culture methods. Because of this, studies predating 1988 (the first published PCR primers) generally don't account for the HRV-Cs, even though they were there and causing infections.

A.Prof Eva Kathryn Miller and I recently reviewed the HRV-Cs in some detail. Around 70 distinct HRV genotypes can circulate at a single place over a year...depending on the population being studied. I and others have found that to be the case in both the community and in hospital-based populations.

A recent article from Yamaya and colleagues suggests that a mucolytic drug (stimulates surfactant production and release to help the airways clear themselves of gunk) might be of use in treating HRV infections in COPD patients at least.

Exacerbations, which are mostly due to viruses, are the main contributor to disease burden in patients suffering from COPD, as they are in those with asthma.

The drug, ambroxol hydrochloride is already thought to reduce the frequency of URT disease and may reduce ICAM-I expression. The authors tested this using a major group HRV, HRV-B14 and found reduced release of virus, ICAM-I levels and reduced viral RNA levels.

Prophylactic use may inhibit HRV-B14 infection and modulate the inflammatory response to infection. Many of the differences were moderate (mostly arithmetic rather than logarithmic), albeit statistically significant.

It would be interesting to see what effect the drug has on other major group HRVs, minor group HRVs and on the hard to culture HRV-Cs.