| Literature DB >> 22669316 |
Yu Liu1, Jingxing Wang, Yi Huang, Tonghan Yang, Xiaoming Guo, Julin Li, Guoxin Wen, Zhongqiao Yun, Peibin Zeng, Miao He, Min Xu, Gui Liu, Ling Ke, David Wright, Jing Liu, Kenrad Nelson, Hua Shan.
Abstract
Although the genetic variability of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in HBV-infected patients has been extensively studied, reports on genotypes, subtypes and mutations in the S region of HBV strains from Chinese blood donors are limited. In this study, 245 blood samples from HBsAg-positive blood donors were collected from five geographically diverse blood centers in China. The S region of HBV was amplified, and the HBV genotype and subtype were determined. The amino acid sequences of the S region were aligned, and mutations related to the failure of immunization and HBsAg detection were determined. Of the 245 samples, 228 (93 %) were genotyped successfully. We found that genotypes B, C, D and A accounted for 58.8 %, 21.9 %, 6.6 % and 3.95 % of the isolates, respectively. The distribution of HBV antigen subtypes was as follows: adw (67.6 %), adr (23.3 %) and ayw (8.7 %). Mutations were present in 39 (17.1 %) of 228 samples in the major hydrophilic region (MHR) of the S region. This study demonstrated that HBV genotype/subtype B/adw was the most frequent strain circulating in HBV-infected Chinese blood donors, followed by C/adr. The occurrence of MHR mutants in HBV-infected blood donors and the potential failure to detect some of them in collected units poses a threat to transfusion safety.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22669316 PMCID: PMC3431469 DOI: 10.1007/s00705-012-1331-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Virol ISSN: 0304-8608 Impact factor: 2.574
Fig. 1Distribution of HBV genotypes in five blood centers. In this figure, A, B, C and D represent genotypes A, B, C and D, respectively, and “mixture” refers to a mixture of at least two different genotypes. Genotype B was the most common genotype in all blood centers except for the Luoyang Blood Center, where the prevalence of genotype C was higher than that of genotype B
Relationship between HBV genotype and HBsAg subtype
| Genotype | Number | Subtype, N (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| adw2 | adw3 | adrq+ | ayw1 | ayw2 | ayw3 | ||
| A | 9 | 8(88.9) | 1(11.1) | / | / | / | / |
| B | 134* | 123(91.8) | 3(2.2) | 1(0.7) | 6 (4.5) | / | / |
| C | 50 | 3(6.0) | / | 47(94.0) | / | / | / |
| D | 15 | 1(6.7) | / | / | / | 6(40.0) | 8(53.3) |
| Mixture | 20 | 15 (75.0) | / | 5 (25.0) | / | / | / |
| Total | 228 | 150 (65.8) | 4(1.8) | 53 (23.3) | 6 (2.6) | 6(2.6) | 8(3.5) |
* A sample of genotype B was determined to be subtype adw but could not be further differentiated between adw2 and adw3
Distribution of HBV subtypes in the five blood centers
| Subtype, N (%) | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subtotal | adw | adw3 | adr | Subtotal | ayw | ayw2 | ayw3 | ||
| adw2 | adrq+ | ayw1 | |||||||
| Kunming | 38(67.9) | 37(66.1) | 1(1.8) | 15(26.8) | 3(5.4) | 2(3.6) | / | 1(1.8) | 56 |
| Urumqi | 33(76.7)* | 31(72.1) | 1(2.3) | 3(7.0) | 7(16.3) | 2(4.7) | 4(9.3) | 1(2.3) | 43 |
| Luoyang | 26(43.3) | 26(43.3) | / | 27(45.0) | 7(11.7) | / | 2(3.3) | 5(8.3) | 60 |
| Liuzhou | 19(79.2) | 18(75.0) | 1(4.2) | 5(20.8) | / | / | / | / | 24 |
| Mianyang | 39(86.7) | 38(84.4) | 1(2.2) | 3(6.7) | 3(6.7) | 2(4.4) | / | 1(2.2) | 45 |
| Total | 155 (67.6) | 150 (65.8) | 4 (1.8) | 53 (23.3) | 20 (8.7) | 6 (2.6) | 6 (2.6) | 8 (3.5) | 228 |
* The subtype of one adw isolate could not be further differentiated between adw2 or adw3
Fig. 2Demographic distribution of HBV genotypes. The samples were grouped by gender, ethnicity, year of donation, and age. The column represents the percent of each genotype in each subgroup
Fig. 3Demographic distribution of HBV subtypes. The samples were grouped by gender, ethnicity, year of donation, and age. The column represents the percent of each subtype in each subgroup
Distribution of MHR mutations in the HBV S region by blood center, demographic variables, genotype, and subtype
| Number | Number of subjects with MHR mutations | Percentage (%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 228 | 39 | 17.1 | |
| Blood center | 0.02 | |||
| Kunming | 56 | 13 | 23.2 | |
| Urumqi | 43 | 7 | 16.3 | |
| Luoyang | 60 | 3 | 5.0 | |
| Liuzhou | 24 | 6 | 25.0 | |
| Mianyang | 45 | 10 | 22.2 | |
| Gender | 0.34 | |||
| Male | 157 | 24 | 15.3 | |
| Female | 71 | 15 | 21.1 | |
| Ethnicity | 0.78 | |||
| Han | 203 | 34 | 16.7 | |
| Minorities | 25 | 5 | 20.0 | |
| Age | 0.80 | |||
| 18-25 | 107 | 20 | 18.7 | |
| 26-40 | 81 | 12 | 14.8 | |
| 41-55 | 40 | 7 | 17.5 | |
| Genotype | 0.02 | |||
| A | 9 | 1 | 11.1 | |
| B | 134 | 31 | 23.1 | |
| C | 50 | 2 | 4 | |
| D | 15 | 3 | 20.0 | |
| Subtype | 0.001 | |||
| adrq+ | 53 | 2 | 3.8 | |
| adw | 155 | 30 | 19.4 | |
| ayw | 20 | 7 | 35.0 | |
Fig. 4Mutations localization in the MHR of HBsAg. Urumqi, W; Kunming, K; Luoyang, L; Miangyang Blood Center, CD; and Liuzhou Blood Center, GX