Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Feb 20.
Published in final edited form as: Virology. 2012 Dec 29;436(2):295–303. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2012.12.005

Figure 4. Prevalance of STLPyV and MWPyV.

Figure 4

(A) PCR analysis of STLPyV and MWPyV is shown for control plasmids of the respective LTAg, or representative samples found to be negative,and positive for STLPyV or MWPyV. Bands corresponds to a STLPyV (481 bp) or MWPyV (484 bp) PCR product. PCR products for all positive samples were cloned and sequenced verified.(B) Prevalence of STLPyV and MWPyV in 634 stool specimens collected from a study of children from Saint Louis , as defined by the direct PCR assay described in panel A. Numbers in parenthesis indicate frequency. (C) Results of PCR screening for STLPyV and MWPyV in feces, plasma, nasopharyngeal swabs (NP), and urine specimens collected from a cohort of adult USA kidney transplant recipients. Numbers in parenthesis beside each specimen type indicate the number of specimens screened.(D) Prevalence of STLPyV and MWPyV in a Gambian diarrheal case control study of children is shown, and is based on the PCR screening assay. Odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Fisher exact test indicate that there is no statistically evidence that STLPyV or MWPyV are significantly associated with diarrheal cases (NS = not significant).