Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24465661›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A novel 2006 Indian outbreak strain of Chikungunya virus exhibits different pattern of infection as compared to prototype strain.

Abhishek Kumar, Prabhudutta Mamidi, Indrani Das, Tapas K Nayak, Sameer Kumar, Jagamohan Chhatai, Subhasis Chattopadhyay, Amol R Suryawanshi, Soma Chattopadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abhishek KumarDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Prabhudutta MamidiDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Indrani DasDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Tapas K NayakSchool of Biological Sciences, National Institute of Science Education & Research, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Sameer KumarDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Jagamohan ChhataiDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Subhasis ChattopadhyaySchool of Biological Sciences, National Institute of Science Education & Research, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Amol R SuryawanshiDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Soma ChattopadhyayDepartment of Infectious Disease Biology, Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Institute of Life Sciences · INNational Institute of Science Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent re-emergence of Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) in India after 32 years and its worldwide epidemics with unprecedented magnitude raised a great public health concern. METHODS AND

findingsIn this study, a biological comparison was carried out between a novel 2006 Indian CHIKV outbreak strain, DRDE-06 and the prototype strain S-27 in mammalian cells in order to understand their differential infection pattern. Results showed that S-27 produced maximum number of progenies (2.43E+06 PFU/ml) at 20 to 24 hours post infection whereas DRDE-06 produced more than double number of progenies around 8 hours post infection in mammalian cells. Moreover, the observation of cytopathic effect, detection of viral proteins and viral proliferation assay confirmed the remarkably faster and significantly higher replication efficiency of DRDE-06. Moreover, our mutational analysis of whole genome of DRDE-06 revealed the presence of nineteen mutations as compared to S-27, whereas the analysis of 273 global isolates showed the consistent presence of fifteen out of nineteen mutations in almost all outbreak isolates. Further analysis revealed that ∼46% of recent outbreak strains including DRDE-06 do not contain the E1-A226V mutation which was earlier shown to be associated with the adaptation of CHIKV in a new vector species, Aedes albopictus.

conclusionsA novel 2006 Indian CHIKV outbreak strain, DRDE-06 exhibits different pattern of infection as compared to prototype strain, S-27. This might be associated to some specific mutations observed in genome wide mutational analysis in DRDE-06 which emphasizes the need of future experimental investigation.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAnimalsChikungunya FeverChikungunya virusChlorocebus aethiopsHumansIndiaMutationPhenotypeRNA, ViralVero CellsRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID24465661
PMCPMC3896419
OpenAlexW2039140339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.