ライフサイエンスコーパス: virus shedding

1 aboratory-confirmed influenza (symptoms plus virus shedding).

2 ed groups showed a modest reduction of nasal virus shedding.

3 lly or via feeding tube (gavage) and assayed virus shedding.

4 d generalization of infection, and decreased virus shedding.

5 ess of different vaccine strategies to block virus shedding.

6 ion from rotavirus challenge, as measured by virus shedding.

7 us serum antibody responses and detection of virus shedding.

8 and that knockdown of HPSE in vivo inhibits virus shedding.

9 ble to reduce influenza symptom duration and virus shedding.

10 on the odds of seroconversion and/or vaccine virus shedding.

11 the presence of factors reported to increase virus shedding.

12 itored for symptoms of influenza disease and virus shedding.

13 o transmission, despite high levels of fecal virus shedding.

14 sult in clinical relapses or in asymptomatic virus shedding.

15 te immunity in controlling the rapid peak in virus shedding.

16 necessarily lead to late gene expression and virus shedding.

17 not exhibit any clinical signs or detectable virus shedding.

18 s regimen induced partial protection against virus shedding (58%) and diarrhea (44%) upon challenge o

19 and was superior to gD2 vaccines in reducing virus shedding after challenge in both groups of animals

20 inoculation but higher rates of diarrhea and virus shedding after challenge than did groups 3 and 5.

21 1 and 2 had significantly less diarrhea and virus shedding after inoculation but higher rates of dia

22 rotection against both influenza disease and virus shedding against all influenza A viruses.

23 denced by seroconversion, viremia, and fecal virus shedding, although mutant aHVRd3, with complete HV

24 -0.89]), was observed in the odds of vaccine virus shedding among NPEV-infected individuals.

25 s ratio, and a short duration of illness and virus shedding among those with influenza indicated pres

26 An inverse correlation was noted between virus shedding and both serum type 2 neutralisation at c

27 gous H5N1 virus challenge and a reduction in virus shedding and disease severity after heterologous c

28 ended version of the model that incorporates virus shedding and dispersal of individuals.

29 layed appearance of seroconversion and fecal virus shedding and had undetectable viremia.

30 and no diminution in the level of persistent virus shedding and latency.

31 internal proteins were associated with lower virus shedding and less severe illness.

32 sponses and were partially protected against virus shedding and lung pathology on subsequent rechalle

33 virus resulted in a significant increase in virus shedding and pathogenicity.

34 ociated with a significant reduction in both virus shedding and recurrent corneal herpetic disease.

35 PRV G9P[13] induced longer rectal virus shedding and RV RNAemia in pigs than HRV Wa G1P[8]

36 pigs developed diarrhea and fecal and nasal virus shedding and seroconverted with serum and intestin

37 antially reduce A(H3N2)v (A/Indiana/08/2011) virus shedding and subsequent transmission to naive host

38 The amount and duration of virus shedding and the frequency of transmission followi

39 The association between the duration of virus shedding and the persistence of detectable viral-s

40 om latency occurs sporadically, resulting in virus shedding and transmission to uninfected cattle.

41 om latency occurs sporadically, resulting in virus shedding and transmission to uninfected cattle.

42 atently infected with BoHV-1, culminating in virus shedding and transmission.

43 6 to evaluate the evidence on modes of Ebola virus shedding and transmission.

44 A statistical association was seen between virus shedding and unexplained cases of gastroenteritis

45 yed appearance and shorter duration of fecal virus shedding and viremia, and lower viral loads in liv

46 Virus shedding and virus functions did not change signif

47 antibodies on protection (from diarrhea and virus shedding), and on active antibody responses (measu

48 from H1N1 infection as indicated by vaccine-virus shedding, and high efficacy against H1N1 challenge

49 d description of viral kinetics, duration of virus shedding, and intraviral evolution in different bo

50 lovirus (CMV) shedding, seminal Epstein-Barr virus shedding, and levels of anti CMV immunoglobulin in

51 pletely abrogated epithelial cell infection, virus shedding, and the associated induction of proinfla

52 lent HRV-inoculated pigs developed diarrhea, virus shedding, and viremia, similar to the orally inocu

53 cal signs associated with transmission, peak virus shedding, and virulence.

54 fected with HIV experience prolonged vaccine virus shedding, and, therefore, they probably represent

55 7 children, 29 (61.7%) had prolonged measles virus shedding, as defined by detection of measles virus

56 ship between influenza virus infectivity and virus shedding, based on different diagnostic methods, h

57 Virus shedding began at postinoculation days (PID) 1 to

58 ug-treated HEV-infected pigs continued fecal virus shedding beyond the acute phase of infection, wher

59 A in stool were associated with cessation of virus shedding by day 7.

60 g-term variation and short-term stability of virus shedding can be generated by three possible factor

61 ions, low or rare pathogenicity, and chronic virus shedding, can all complicate disease association s

62 fever response, gross lesions, viremia, and virus shedding compared to parental and revertant viruse

63 ficant reductions in fever, weight loss, and virus shedding compared to these parameters in nonimmune

64 HIV)-infected children had prolonged measles virus shedding, compared with 19 (52.8%) of 36 HIV-uninf

65 nasal wash IgA and reduction of heterologous virus shedding, compared with IIV.

66 Under this protocol, detectable infectious-virus shedding continued until passage 5 and viral gene

67 of infected cells to propagate as long-term virus-shedding cultures; electron microscopy studies sho

68 by a model of human influenza based only on virus-shedding data.

69 ted for replication, with only low levels of virus shedding detected in respiratory secretions.

70 Prolonged measles virus shedding did not correlate with levels of measles

71 tant did not reactivate from latency because virus shedding did not occur in ocular or nasal cavities

72 cause clinical signs of disease, viremia, or virus shedding even when inoculated at doses 100-fold hi

73 This limited virus shedding explained the absence of secondary transm

74 2 virus infection displayed reduced A(H3N2)v virus shedding following challenge, which blunted transm

75 2006b variant and monitored for diarrhea and virus shedding for 7 days.

76 tterns of seroconversion, viremia, and fecal virus shedding for pigs inoculated with RNA transcripts

77 rain EDIM [epizootic diarrhea of infant mice virus]) shedding for at least 1 year.

78 Increased virus shedding from individuals who are especially susce

79 ntly lower microscopic lung lesions and less virus shedding from the respiratory tract than did unvac

80 ever, Ban/AF significantly reduced challenge virus shedding from the vaccinated birds compared to B1

81 e studies indicate that the LR gene promotes virus shedding from tonsil tissue during acute infection

82 pulated did antibody production increase and virus shedding fully resolve.

83 Infectivity of ca virus (virus shedding, > or = 4-fold rise in serum hemagglutina

84 ics can account for the observed spectrum of virus shedding, immune response, and influenza pathology

85 provide a quantitative view of heterogeneous virus shedding in birds that may be used to better param

86 r 2 were also linearly, inversely related to virus shedding in breast milk.

87 Data from a recent study have shown that the virus shedding in EBV positive individuals is relatively

88 l drug concentrations correlate with genital virus shedding in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-inf

89 e induced diarrhea without (or with limited) virus shedding in inoculated calves (n = 3).

90 uced the incidence of UV-B-induced recurrent virus shedding in latently infected mice.

91 stration of CDCA significantly reduced fecal virus shedding in mice (P < 0.05).

92 fluenza viruses, resulting in high titers of virus shedding in nasal washes for up to 5 days postinoc

93 ith resolution of viremia and termination of virus shedding in oropharynges and feces.

94 st reduction in the duration of symptoms and virus shedding in people with uncomplicated influenza in

95 Frequency of virus shedding in serial urine samples by patients posit

96 stroenteritis, but the onset and duration of virus shedding in stool and serum antibody responses wer

97 ng HSV-1 reactivation from TG and subsequent virus shedding in tears that trigger recurrent corneal h

98 the Hong Kong markets in 1997 but permitted virus shedding in the feces.

99 occurs in both epithelial cells (explaining virus shedding in the gastrointestinal tract) and lympho

100 occurs in both epithelial cells (explaining virus shedding in the gastrointestinal tract) and lympho

101 e virus frequently reactivates, resulting in virus shedding in the genital area, which serves as a so

102 ses and exhibited partial protection against virus shedding in the lungs compared to controls.

103 gnificant reduction in the number of days of virus shedding in those vaccinees who developed influenz

104 replication titers and the time of onset of virus shedding in triple-reassortant viruses.

105 ies, increase in anti-MV antibody titers, or virus shedding in urine or saliva.

106 rotavirus challenge (> or = 50% reduction in virus shedding) in 50% of the mice.

107 ctors to explain the short-term stability of virus shedding into saliva.

108 ferential equations to study the dynamics of virus shedding into the saliva of infected hosts.

109 We show that influenza virus shedding is highly heterogeneous between subjects.

110 Our analysis also shows that clearance of virus shedding is possible only when there is no virus r

111 Long-term virus shedding, lasting from one to 12 months, was obser

112 Based on virus shedding, limited replication was observed with th

113 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36; P<.001) and lesion virus shedding (median, 3 days vs 3 days; HR, 1.35; 95%

114 crease in corneal IL-la mRNA in reactivated (virus shedding) mice.

115 The resolution of fecal virus shedding occurred concurrently with induction of i

116 Fecal virus shedding of FECV occurred in both groups starting

117 Nevertheless, there was restricted virus shedding on challenge with a second vaccine dose a

118 clinical signs and did not develop viremia, virus shedding or antibodies against FMDV nonstructural

119 The virus shedding pattern of RSV was not different between

120 Additionally, virus shedding patterns indicate a different pathogenesi

121 Fecal virus shedding persisting for at least 7 days was detect

122 obiotic) pigs had lower diarrhea and reduced virus shedding postchallenge compared with noncolonized

123 ded with lower diarrhea severity and reduced virus shedding postchallenge in Vac+Pro compared with Va

124 s as young as 4 weeks old, with undetectable virus shedding postchallenge.

125 linical signs of disease and quantitated for virus shedding postexposure.

126 ngs that include viral infections with lower virus-shedding rates than IHNV or where higher viral tit

127 er respiratory tract virus load, duration of virus shedding, select mucosal chemokine and cytokine le

128 adulthood did not alter immune responses or virus shedding, suggesting that sex steroids may organiz

129 nd and third prolines appear to aid in fecal virus shedding, suggesting that the PSAP motif, but not

130 ial effect of rimantadine was documented for virus shedding, symptom load, and sinus pain.

131 Therapeutic ART suppresses genital virus shedding throughout the menstrual cycle, even in t

132 Mean peak virus shedding titers and mean cumulative fecal scores w

133 Although the double mutant had virus shedding titers and transmissibility comparable to

134 Clinical signs, virus shedding, virus replication in respiratory tissues

135 Although virus shedding was comparable between the N(752) and D(7

136 ificantly lower titers and that the onset of virus shedding was delayed compared to the replication t

137 Virus shedding was detected beginning at 3 days p.i. fro

138 enge with bovine coronavirus, no diarrhea or virus shedding was detected in calves inoculated with HE

139 Little or no virus shedding was detected in nose-throat swabs or trac

140 Virus shedding was detected in the respiratory and intes

141 Fecal virus shedding was detected variably from 1 to 20 dpi fo

142 o significant protection against diarrhea or virus shedding was evident in any of the 2/6-VLP (with o

143 Virus shedding was examined via tissue culture and rever

144 The maximal concentration of virus shedding was higher for persons with gastroenterit

145 Virus shedding was much higher and prolonged in quail an

146 were manipulated and antibody responses and virus shedding were assessed following inoculation with

147 d mucosal IL-6 level, and longer duration of virus shedding were associated with severe disease.

148 Fecal and nasal virus shedding were first detected by reverse transcript

149 enzyme gamma-glutamyl transferase and fecal virus shedding were significantly higher in immunocompro

150 t commercial vaccine was not able to prevent virus shedding when chickens were challenged with antige

151 arrhea and 49% homologous protection against virus shedding, while the P particle and VLP vaccines pr

152 mmunocompromised mice demonstrated prolonged virus shedding with modest induction of immune responses

153 Sustained virus shedding with transmission to contact-exposed bird

154 c calf, GiCoV-OH3 caused severe diarrhea and virus shedding within 2 to 3 days.

155 The mechanisms underlying the regulation of virus shedding within a host are not fully understood.