Search

Routine surveillance in live poultry markets in the northern regions of Vietnam from 2016 to 2017 resulted in the isolation of 27 highly pathogenic avian H5N1 and H5N6 viruses of 3 different clades (2.3.2.1c, 2.3.4.4f, and 2.3.4.4g). Sequence and phylogenetic analysis of these viruses revealed reassortment with various subtypes of low pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Deep-sequencing identified minor viral subpopulations encoding variants that may affect pathogenicity and sensitivity to antiviral drugs. Interestingly, mice infected with two different clade 2.3.2.1c viruses lost body weight rapidly and succumbed to virus infection, whereas mice infected with clade 2.3.4.4f or 2.3.4.4g viruses experienced non-lethal infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All viruses rely on host cell proteins and their associated mechanisms to complete the viral life cycle. Identifying the host molecules that participate in each step of virus replication could provide valuable new targets for antiviral therapy, but this goal may take several decades to achieve with conventional forward genetic screening methods and mammalian cell cultures. Here we describe a novel genome-wide RNA interference (RNAi) screen in Drosophila that can be used to identify host genes important for influenza virus replication. After modifying influenza virus to allow infection of Drosophila cells and detection of influenza virus gene expression, we tested an RNAi library against 13,071 genes (90% of the Drosophila genome), identifying over 100 for which suppression in Drosophila cells significantly inhibited or stimulated reporter gene (Renilla luciferase) expression from an influenza-virus-derived vector. The relevance of these findings to influenza virus infection of mammalian cells is illustrated for a subset of the Drosophila genes identified; that is, for three implicated Drosophila genes, the corresponding human homologues ATP6V0D1, COX6A1 and NXF1 are shown to have key functions in the replication of H5N1 and H1N1 influenza A viruses, but not vesicular stomatitis virus or vaccinia virus, in human HEK 293 cells. Thus, we have demonstrated the feasibility of using genome-wide RNAi screens in Drosophila to identify previously unrecognized host proteins that are required for influenza virus replication. This could accelerate the development of new classes of antiviral drugs for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, which are urgently needed given the obstacles to rapid development of an effective vaccine against pandemic influenza and the probable emergence of strains resistant to available drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We compared the clinical effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir in children with influenza A (H1N1) virus, influenza A (H3N2) virus, and influenza B virus infections. Methods. Total febrile period and the duration of fever after the start of treatment were compared between an oseltamivir-treated group (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 4.0-15.9 years) and a zanamivir-treated group (mean age, 10.0 years; range, 4.0-15.7 years) in the pediatric outpatient clinics of our hospitals. Oseltamivir was used to treat 91 children with influenza A (H3N2) infection and 24 children with influenza A (H1N1) infection. Zanamivir was used to treat 35 children with influenza A (H3N2) infection and 12 children with influenza A (H1N1) infection. Oseltamivir was also used to treat 128 children with influenza B virus infection, and zanamivir was used to treat 59 with influenza B virus infection. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in total febrile period or duration of fever after the start of treatment between the oseltamivir-treated group and the zanamivir-treated group of children with influenza A (H3N2) infection (mean duration of febrile period, 2.40 days vs. 2.39 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.35 days vs. 1.40 days), influenza A (H1N1) (mean duration of febrile period, 2.60 days vs. 2.46 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.79 days vs, 1.54 days), or influenza B (mean duration of febrile period, 2.95 days vs. 2.84 days; mean duration of fever after the start of treatment, 1.86 days vs. 1.67 days). Oseltamivir was more effective against influenza A (H3N2) than against influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B. Conclusions. Oseltamivir and zanamivir were equally effective in reducing the febrile period of children with influenza A (H1N1), influenza A (H3N2), and influenza B virus infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]