Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2000, p. 4310-4314, Vol. 38, No. 12
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Application of Representational Difference Analysis
to Genomic Fragments of Marek's Disease Virus
Daiji
Endoh,1,*
Kyoung-Oh
Cho,2,
Kenji
Tsukamoto,3
Toshifumi
Morimura,2
Yasuhiro
Kon,4 and
Masanobu
Hayashi1
Department of Veterinary Radiology, Rakuno
Gakuen University, Ebetsu,1 Department
of Disease Control,2 and Laboratory of
Experimental Animal Science,4 Graduate School of
Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, and
Laboratory of Viral Pathogenesis, National Institute of Animal
Health, Tsukuba,3 Japan
Received 2 May 2000/Returned for modification 16 August
2000/Accepted 21 September 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
A rapid and simple method for isolation of DNA fragments of
Marek's disease virus (MDV) based on representational difference analysis (RDA) was developed. Multiple viral DNA fragments, the sizes
of which were restricted to 0.3 to 3.5 kbp, were simultaneously amplified after subtraction of chicken DNA from BamHI-,
BglII-, EcoRI-, HindIII-, or
XhoI-digested DNA fragments of MDV-infected cells.
Nucleotide sequence of two RDA-derived fragments coincided with the
sequence determined from direct sequencing of the MDV genome. We
detected an interstrain difference in the size of restriction enzyme-digested fragments on agarose gel. This method was used on a
single feather pulp to generate sufficient MDV DNA for cloning.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Marek's disease virus (MDV) is an
oncogenic avian herpesvirus that induces T-cell lymphomas in its
natural host, the chicken, 4 to 6 weeks after infection
(28). Many MDV strains with differing oncogenicities have
been isolated from field populations of fowl (26). Although
candidates of oncogenic genes have been presented, oncogenic mechanisms
have not been determined (16, 19, 25). A comparison of the
whole genome structures of many strains of MDV is needed to understand
the complicated oncogenic mechanisms by which this virus causes tumors.
Unfortunately, purification of the MDV genome is complicated because
its density is similar to that of chick cell DNA. Furthermore, because
of the cell-associated nature of the virus, which limits the proportion
of cells that can be infected, the yield of virus particles is usually
poor (18). As for comparisons of nucleotide sequences, the
size of the MDV genome (approximately 180 kbp) is too long for direct sequence analysis.
Lisitsyn et al. (15) described a method for the preparation
of restriction enzyme (RE) fragments present in one population of
genome DNA but not in others, using sequence-independent single-primer amplification, called representational difference analysis (RDA). The
RDA method was successfully used to identify and obtain clones of
Kaposi's sarcoma-associated virus (also called human herpesvirus 8 [reference 3]) DNA and TT virus DNA
(17). Unfortunately, the sizes of isolated clones obtained
by the original RDA method are too small for sequence analysis of the
MDV genome.
In the present study, we modified the original RDA method. This was
done by first omitting the initial amplification step and then using
proofreading Taq polymerase for amplification of longer DNA
fragments from total cellular DNA infected with a variety of oncogenic
strains of MDV.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Virus strains, culture of cells, and infection of chickens.
The strains of MDV used were very virulent Md5 (27) and
RB-IB (23); virulent GA (5), JM (24),
and MS2 (11); and nonvirulent CVI-988 clone C
(4). Viruses were propagated in chicken embryo fibroblasts
(CEF), which were prepared from specific pathogen-free embryos and
cultivated in modified Eagle medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf
serum, 2 mM glutamine, and 100 U of penicillin G/ml in a humidified
atmosphere at 37°C.
To prepare feather pulp including the virus, 10,000 PFU of Md5 strain
MDV were injected intramuscularly. Feathers were collected 14 days
after the injection, and each root of the feather pulp was subjected to
DNA extraction.
RE fragments.
Total cellular DNAs were extracted using
proteinase K (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.). Briefly, cells were
lysed and incubated in 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate and proteinase K (100 µg/ml) at 65°C for 8 h (22). Proteins surrounding
DNA were lysed and digested during incubation. The DNA solution was
extracted with phenol and chloroform and precipitated using ethanol.
The feather pulp DNA was also extracted from the root of the feather
pulp, to which a small amount of feather follicle epithelium was
attached. Glycogen (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) was used for precipitation of a small amount of DNA extracted from the feather.
One microgram of cellular DNAs was digested with units of
RE
BamHI,
BglII,
EcoRI,
HindIII,
SalI, or
XhoI

under the
conditions
recommended by the manufacturer of the RE (New England
BioLabs,
Inc., Beverly, Mass.). RE fragments were extracted with
phenol-chloroform
once and precipitated using
ethanol.
RDA.
RDA was performed according to the method of Lisitsyn
et al. (15), except that RE fragments from MDV-infected
cellular DNA were directly subtracted by those from uninfected cellular
DNA. Namely, 2 to 5 ng of RE fragments from MDV-infected cells were ligated with specific linkers for each of the REs listed in Table 1 and mixed with 100 ng of the RE
fragments extracted from uninfected CEF DNA. The mixture was
precipitated with ethanol, dissolved in 4 µl of 3× EE buffer (30 mM
EPPS
[N-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-N'-3-propanesulfonic acid] and 3 mM EDTA [pH 8.0]), and covered with mineral oil. After the mixture had been heated to 99°C for 4 min, 1 µl of 5 M NaCl was
added, and the solution was incubated at 67°C for 21 h. During this incubation period, RE fragments of the chicken genome with a
linker included in the DNA from MDV-infected cells were hybridized with
those from uninfected cells without a linker. After hybridization, the
reaction mixture was diluted to 100 µl with 1× reaction buffer of
the Expand HiFi PCR system (Roche Diagnostics). One microliter of
hybridized solution was transferred to 100 µl of preheated reaction
mixture of the Expand HiFi PCR system (10 µl of 10× Expand HiFi
buffer [including 15 mM MgCl2] and a 0.2 mM concentration of each deoxynucleotide). The PCR mixture was heated to 72°C prior to
the addition of 5 U of Taq polymerase mixture included in
the Expand HiFi PCR system. The reaction mixture was maintained at 72°C for 5 min to fill the 5' overhanging ends of the linkers for
RDA, providing a sequence complementary to the 24-mer linker at the 3'
ends of the molecule that had hybridized to the RE fragments of the
MDV-infected CEF. This was immediately followed by a denaturation step
(94°C for 2 min), and 20 cycles of PCR (94°C for 1 min, and 72°C
for 8 min). In the amplification step, RE fragments having linkers on
both ends were selectively amplified in the PCR step. As a result, DNA
fragments specific to MDV-infected cells, most of which were viral DNA,
were amplified. The optimum ratio of DNA extracted from infected CEF to
those from CEF was preliminarily determined by small-scale RDA. In most
cases, the optimum ratio was in the range of 1:3 to 1:100. The
amplified genome was analyzed on agarose gels.
Southern blot hybridization.
One hundred nanograms to two
micrograms of RDA-derived fragments or RE fragments of MDV were
separated on agarose gels, blotted onto a Biodyne nylon membrane (Pall
Co. Ltd., Port Washington, N.Y.) by capillary transfer in 20× SSC
(20× SSC is 3 M sodium chloride plus 0.3 M sodium citrate) for 16 h, and fixed to the membrane by baking in an oven at 80°C for 30 min.
Hybridization was carried out in a buffer containing 10.3%
polyethylene glycol (8,000 molecular weight), 1.55× SSPE (20× SSPE is
3.6 M sodium chloride, 0.2 M sodium phosphate (pH 7.7), 20 mM EDTA),
7.24% sodium dodecyl sulfate, and 32P-labeled DNA probes
at 65°C for 16 h. As probes for the MDV genome, BamHI
fragment clones of the MDV, a generous gift from M. Nonoyama (Tampa Bay
Institute, St. Petersburg, Fla.) (7), were used as probes
for the MDV genome. When RDA-derived fragments were used as probes,
fragments were extracted from agarose gel using a Jet Sorb DNA
extraction kit (GENOMED GmbH, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany) according to the
manufacturer's protocol. Labeling was carried out using a random prime
labeling kit (BcaBest Labeling kit; Takara Shuzo Co. Ltd, Kyoto, Japan)
according to the manufacturer's protocol.
Cloning and sequence analysis.
The RDA-derived fragments
were cut with the RE that had been used for the RDA, separated on
agarose gels, extracted as described in the preceding section, and
cloned into pSPORT1 (Gibco-BRL Life Technologies, Co., Rockville, Md.).
Plasmids that included RDA-derived fragments were selected by colony
hybridization and extracted from a small culture using a Jet Prep
plasmid extraction kit (GENOMED). When the fragment was sequenced,
three clones of the plasmid were sequenced to detect PCR errors.
Sequences of the RDA-derived fragments were determined using a Big Dye
terminator kit (Perkin-Elmer Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.) and a
Prism310 sequencer (Perkin-Elmer Biosystems) by the primer walking
method. Construction of primers and DNA sequence analysis were carried
out using a Vector NTI program (InforMax, North Bethesda, Md.). To
determine the original sequence of the MDV genome, regions of the MDV
genome were amplified and sequenced with the primers used for primer
walking sequencing of the cloned RDA-derived fragments.
Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.
Accession numbers for
the two sequences determined in this study in the DDBJ database are
AB041042 and AB041041 for BamHI-K1 and -T, respectively.
 |
RESULTS |
When the BamHI-restricted fragments extracted from the
MDV CVI strain-infected CEF were subtracted from those from uninfected CEF, 11 bands less than 3.5 kbp long were visible on the ethidium bromide-stained gel after electrophoresis (Fig.
1A). No amplified fragment was observed
when BamHI-restricted fragments from mock-infected CEF were
used as a template for amplification. Different patterns of amplified
fragments were shown when BamHI-, BglII-,
EcoRI-, HindIII-, and
XhoI-restricted fragments were used as templates. Therefore,
the sizes and numbers of the amplified fragments were dependent on the
RE used in the RDA. All of the amplified fragments were hybridized with
a 32P-labeled MDV probe (a mixture of
BamHI-digested MDV fragment clones (BamHI-A to
BamHI-T) (Fig. 1B). These results indicated that RE
fragments from MDV DNA, but not from cellular DNA, were selectively
amplified. A comparison of the Southern blot patterns of the
RDA-amplified fragments with those of RE-digested MDV DNA showed that
almost all of the band patterns of the amplified fragments corresponded
to those of RE-digested MDV DNA in the molecular size range of 0.3 to
3.5 kbp regardless of the RE (Fig. 1B and C). These results indicated
that RE fragments less than 3.5 kbp long were efficiently amplified.

View larger version (81K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
RDA-derived RE fragments of MDV (strain CVI). The RE
fragments were prepared by subtraction of BamHI-,
BglII-, EcoRI-, HindIII-, or
XhoI-digested CEF DNA from those of MDV-infected CEF (see
Materials and Methods). (A) Agarose gel electrophoresis of RDA-derived
fragments amplified from BglII-, EcoRI-,
HindIII-, or XhoI-digested MDV DNAs. CEF
indicates the negative control of RDA. (B) Southern blot analysis of
the gel shown in panel A. A sequence corresponding to that of the MDV
genome was detected with 32P-labeled MDV genomic clones.
(C) Southern blot analysis of RE fragments of MDV. The probe was the
same as above. Numbers between panels indicate sizes of markers in
kilobase pairs.
|
|
To confirm that the RE fragments were amplified exactly, a 3.5-kbp
RDA-derived fragment amplified from BamHI-digested MDV was
hybridized to a subset of BamHI clone DNAs (Fig.
2). The 3.5-kbp fragment only hybridized
with the same-sized MDV BamHI-K fragments (BamHI-K1, K2, and K3
[Fig. 2]). In the same manner, 10 residual amplified fragments
corresponded to each MDV BamHI fragment of the same size
(data not shown). Furthermore, to estimate the fidelity of amplified
fragments, sequences of RDA-derived fragments were compared with their
counterparts of the original genome. Two RDA-derived fragments (3.5 and
0.7 kbp) amplified from BamHI-digested DNA extracted from
MDV GA strain-infected CEF were cloned and sequenced. These clones were
hybridized with BamHI-K1 and -T of published BamHI fragments, respectively (data not shown). The
sequences of three randomly selected clones of the 0.7-kbp fragment
were exactly the same, and two randomly selected clones of the 3.5-kbp fragment were also exactly the same. Only one base on one randomly selected clone was not the same as that of the other two clones. Thus,
sequencing of multiple clones of RDA-derived fragments covered the PCR
errors in relatively long sequences. As a result, sequences determined
from the three clones coincided throughout a total of 4,327 bases (data
not shown but accessible in DDBJ with accession no. AB041041 and
AB041042). No deletion or insertions were detected. This result
suggests that nucleotide sequences determined from the RDA-derived
fragments are reliable enough for gene analysis of a viral genome.

View larger version (56K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Hybridization of RDA-derived fragments from
BamHI-digested MDV with MDV BamHI fragment clones
(7). The lower subset of published BamHI
fragments (fragment K to T clones) were separated in agarose gel,
stained (upper panel), and hybridized with a 32P-labeled
3.4-kbp RDA-derived fragment. Numbers on the left indicate sizes of
markers in kilobase pairs.
|
|
As the RDA-derived fragments could be observed directly on ethidium
bromide-stained gel, interstrain differences in RE fragments can be
detected from comparisons of the RDA-derived fragments between strains.
In this study, we detected an interstrain difference in
SalI-digested MDV fragment size (Fig.
3A). Probing the hybridization product
with a 1.8-kbp SalI fragment indicated that the size of a
SalI-digested fragment (1.8 kbp in GA, MS2, and RB-IB
strains) was changed to 2 kbp in CVI and JM strains (Fig. 3B). This
result indicates that interstrain difference in sizes of RE fragments can be detected from direct comparisons of the RDA-derived RE fragments
on agarose gels. The sequences of the 1.8- and 2.0-kbp fragments were
determined. A 200-bp insertion was seen in the Meq gene of
CVI and JM strains (Fig. 3C). The sequence and the location of the
insertion were the same as those in a recent report on MDV
(14).

View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Interstrain comparisons of RDA-derived RE fragments of
MDV. (A) Agarose gel electrophoresis of RDA-derived fragments prepared
from SalI-digested MDV DNAs. Strains of MDV are indicated
above the gel. Numbers on the left indicate sizes of markers in
kilobase pairs. (B) Southern blot analysis of SalI-digested
MDV. The 1.8-kbp RDA-derived fragment which appeared is indicated by an
arrow in the agarose gel in panel A and was used as a probe. (C)
Diagram of the 1.8-kbp SalI fragment of GA strain MDV. The
shaded box indicates a 0.2-kbp insert detected in the genome of CVI and
JM strains of MDV. The open arrow indicates the Meq gene.
Restriction sites are also indicated.
|
|
To further show the advantage of this method based on increased
sensitivity, we tried to prepare RDA-derived MDV fragments from single
feather pulp. Fragments were amplified from some single-feather pulp
(Fig. 4). This amplification was not
observed with the feather pulp of a mock-infected chicken. When
amplified products were digested with BamHI and ligated with
the plasmid, 0.3-, 0.6-, 1.0-, 1.3-, 1.5-, 1.9-, 2.2-, 2.6-, 3.1-, and
3.5-kbp fragments were cloned (data not shown).

View larger version (71K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Agarose gel electrophoresis of RDA-derived
BamHI-digested MDV from feathers of MDV-infected chickens.
Five feathers from each infected chicken were subjected to RDA. Numbers
beside the gel indicate sizes of markers in kilobase pairs. Mock
indicates RDA-derived DNA from a feather of a mock-infected chicken.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The results of this study showed that most of the RE fragments of
MDV of less than 3.5 kbp were simultaneously amplified to amounts
sufficient for analysis on ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel from a
small amount of infected cells. The yield of fragments per infected
cell obtained in the present study was much higher than the yields
obtained by other methods, such as Hirt's method or pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis (9, 12). These fragments could be easily
extracted from the gel and cloned into plasmid. As for nucleotide
sequences, the viral RE fragments are expected to have relatively high
fidelity. The inherent 3'-5' exonuclease proofreading activity of
Pwo DNA polymerase results in a fourfold-increased fidelity
of DNA synthesis (8.5 × 10
6 errors per nucleotide
incorporation) compared to Taq DNA polymerase (2.6 × 10
5 errors per nucleotide incorporation) (1).
The manufacturer estimated that approximately 90% of 3-kbp amplified
fragments had no error made by misreading of Taq DNA
polymerase after 20 cycles of amplification (Roche Diagnostics). The
sequence data of the cloned RDA fragments, which correspond to
BamHI-K1 and -T fragments of the MDV genome,
indicated high fidelity throughout the fragments when the sequence was
compared to that determined from direct sequencing of the genome. A
comparison of the sequence with the published GA sequence
(13) showed that the entire sequence coincided within the
BamHI-T fragment, while 18 bases did not coincide within the
BamHI-K1 fragment. Since the sequence was compared with that from the genome, inconsistencies of the nucleotides have been caused by the differences in viral clones maintained in our
laboratory. It has been suggested that the MDV genome is susceptible to
mutation (26). Thus, our sequence data suggest that the
modified method of RDA can be successfully adapted to isolation of
virus DNA fragments, which could be used for determination of sequences
and other investigations.
RDA has also been used to compare interstrain differences in RE
fragments of MDV (6). In this study, we detected a recently identified interstrain difference in RE fragments from comparisons of
patterns of amplified fragments. Compared with the restricted number of
known interstrain polymorphisms of RE fragments (8, 20),
comparisons of RDA-derived fragments seemed to be an effective approach
for detecting interstrain differences in RE fragments. We detected a
newly identified insert within the Meq gene. The nucleotide
sequence of the insert and the predicted change of the Meq
gene were determined and identified to be the same as those of a
recently published polymorphism of the Meq gene
(14). These data suggested that the modified RDA method
could be applied to interstrain comparisons.
The modified RDA can be started from a small quantity of DNA. MDV DNA
may be isolated from small biopsy samples. It is well known that
MDV-infected feather follicle epithelium is attached to the bottom of
feather pulp (2). MDV fragments isolated from a small number
of feathers would be a useful sample for analysis of field isolates of
MDV. Although amplification of all feather pulps was not successful,
our data suggest that five or six feathers are sufficient for the
amplification of MDV fragments. The cause of the failure of
amplification in some feather pulps is currently being investigated.
Since the modified method of RDA is not dependent on viral sequences,
it may be used for isolation of other DNA viruses. Since RNA can also
be subtracted by RDA (10), it is possible that the modified
method of RDA could be further adapted to isolation of the genome
sequence of RNA virus. Sallie (21) presented a theoretical
PCR-based strategy for identification of infectious pathogens using a
cDNA and DNA mixture to detect pathogens. We are now further modifying
the method for isolation of both DNA and RNA viruses.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Mark Brazil for helpful discussions.
This work was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Japan (10876060, 10556068 and
12660289), and The Science Research Promotion Fund from The Promotion
and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools in Japan.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Veterinary Radiology, Rakuno Gakuen University, Ebetsu 069-8501, Japan. Phone: 81-11-388-4847. Fax: 81-11-387-5890. E-mail:
dendoh{at}rakuno.ac.jp.
Present address: Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Chonnam National University, Kwangju, South Korea.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Barnes, W. M.
1994.
PCR amplification of up to 35-kb DNA with high fidelity and high yield from lambda bacteriophage templates.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
91:2216-2220[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Calnek, B. W.,
H. K. Adldinger, and D. E. Kahn.
1970.
Feather follicle epithelium: a source of enveloped and infectious cell-free herpesvirus from Marek's disease.
Avian Dis.
14:219-233[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Chang, Y.
1994.
Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma.
Science
266:1865-1869[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
DeBoer, G. F.,
J. E. Groenendal,
H. M. Boerrigter,
G. L. Kok, and J. M. A. Pol.
1986.
Protective efficacy of Marek's disease virus (MDV) CVI-988 CEF clone C against challenge infection with three very virulent MDV strains.
Avian Dis.
30:276-283[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 5.
|
Edison, C. S., and S. C. Schmittle.
1968.
Studies on acute Marek's disease. I. Characteristics of isolate GA in chickens.
Avian Dis.
12:467-476[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Endoh, D.,
M. Ito,
K. O. Cho,
Y. Kon,
T. Morimura,
M. Hayashi, and M. Kuwabara.
1998.
Retroviral sequence located in border region of short unique region and short terminal repeat of Md5 strain of Marek's disease virus type 1.
J. Vet. Med. Sci.
60:227-235[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Fukuchi, K.,
M. Sudo,
Y. S. Lee,
A. Tanaka, and M. Nonoyama.
1984.
Structure of Marek's disease virus DNA: detailed restriction enzyme map.
J. Virol.
51:102-109[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Hirai, K.,
K. Ikuta, and S. Kato.
1981.
Restriction endonuclease analysis of the genomes of virulent and avirulent Marek's disease viruses.
Microbiol. Immunol.
25:671-681[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Hirt, B.
1967.
Selective extraction of polyoma DNA from infected mouse cell cultures.
J. Mol. Biol.
26:365-369[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Hubank, M., and D. G. Schatz.
1994.
Identifying differences in mRNA expression by representational difference analysis of cDNA.
Nucleic Acids Res.
22:5640-5648[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Imai, K.,
N. Yuasa,
K. Kobayashi,
K. Nakamura,
K. Tsukamoto, and H. Hihara.
1990.
Isolation of Marek's disease virus from Japanese quail with lymphoproliferative disease.
Avian Pathol.
19:119-129.
|
| 12.
|
Isfort, R. J.,
D. Robinson, and H. J. Kung.
1990.
Purification of genomic sized herpesvirus DNA using pulse-field electrophoresis.
J. Virol. Methods
27:311-317[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Lee, L. F.,
P. Wu,
D. Sui,
D. Ren,
J. Kamil,
H. J. Kung, and R. L. Witter.
2000.
The complete unique long sequence and the overall genomic organization of the GA strain of Marek's disease virus.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
97:6091-6096[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Lee, S.-I.,
M. Takagi,
K. Ohashi,
C. Sugimoto, and M. Onuma.
2000.
Difference in the meq gene between oncogenic and attenuated strains of Marek's disease virus serotype 1.
J. Vet. Med. Sci.
62:287-292[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Lisitsyn, N.,
N. Lisitsyn, and M. Wigler.
1993.
Cloning the differences between two complex genomes.
Science
259:946-951[Abstract].
|
| 16.
|
Liu, J. L.,
Y. Ye,
L. F. Lee, and H. J. Kung.
1998.
Transforming potential of the herpesvirus oncoprotein MEQ: morphological transformation, serum-independent growth, and inhibition of apoptosis.
J. Virol.
72:388-395[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Nishizawa, T.,
H. Okamoto,
K. Konishi,
H. Yoshizawa,
Y. Miyakawa, and M. Mayumi.
1997.
A novel DNA virus (ttv) associated with elevated transaminase levels in posttransfusion hepatitis of unknown etiology.
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
241:92-97[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Ross, L. J. N.
1985.
Molecular biology of the virus, p. 113-150.
In
L. N. Payne (ed.), Marek's disease. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, Mass.
|
| 19.
|
Ross, L. J. N.,
M. M. Binns,
M. Sanderson, and K. A. Schat.
1993.
Alterations in DNA sequence and RNA transcription of the BamHI-H fragment accompany attenuation of oncogenic Marek's disease herpesvirus.
Virus Genes
7:33-51[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Ross, L. J. N.,
B. Milne, and P. M. Biggs.
1983.
Restriction endonuclease analysis of Marek's disease virus DNA and homology between strains.
J. Gen. Virol.
64:2785-2790[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Sallie, R.
1995.
Sequence-independent identification of infectious pathogens: a hypothesis.
Med. Hypotheses
45:131-134[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Sambrook, J.,
E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis.
1989.
Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed., p. 9.14-9.22.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York.
|
| 23.
|
Schat, K. A.,
B. W. Calnek, and J. Fabricant.
1982.
Characterization of two highly oncogenic strains of Marek's disease virus.
Avian Pathol.
11:593-605[Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Sevoian, M.,
D. M. Chanberlain, and F. Counter.
1962.
Avian lymphomatosis. Experimental reproduction of the neural and visceral forms.
Vet. Med.
57:500-501.
|
| 25.
|
Tanaka, A.,
K. Fukuchi, and M. Nonoyama.
1984.
Expansion of a specific region of DNA in non-pathogenic strains of Marek's disease virus (MDV).
UCLA Symp. Mol. Cell. Biol.
21:527.
|
| 26.
|
Witter, R. L.
1997.
Increased virulence of Marek's disease virus field isolates.
Avian Dis.
41:149-163[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Witter, R. L.,
J. M. Sharma, and A. M. Fadly.
1980.
Pathogenicity of variant Marek's disease virus isolants in vaccinated and unvaccinated chickens.
Avian Dis.
24:210-232[CrossRef].
|
| 28.
|
Zelnik, V.
1995.
Marek's disease and new approaches to its control.
Acta Virol. (Praha)
39:53-63.
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2000, p. 4310-4314, Vol. 38, No. 12
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.