International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2009
The role of HPV type in Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Donne A J, Hampson L, Homer J J, Hampson I N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 6 and 11 are the aetiological agents responsible for Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis (RRP). There is general consensus that HPV11 results in more aggressive disease compared to HPV6.
METHOD: Pubmed was searched using the terms respiratory papillomatosis, HPV 6 and HPV11. Comparisons were made in the outcomes of HPV6 versus HPV11 positive RRP disease.
RESULTS: There are numerous sub-types or variants of both HPV6 and HPV11. These sub-types have different activities at least in-vitro. The numbers of different HPV types within RRP tissue may be more extensive than initially appeared. This depends specifically upon the HPV types tested for.
CONCLUSION: The clinical differences between HPV6 and HPV11 disease may not be accurately predictable as these viruses exist in numerous sub-types. Also, RRP tissue may contain more than one subtype or even be co-infected with other viruses that may influence outcome. In-vitro studies upon cell lines are a reasonable starting point for evaluation of these differences.
METHOD: Pubmed was searched using the terms respiratory papillomatosis, HPV 6 and HPV11. Comparisons were made in the outcomes of HPV6 versus HPV11 positive RRP disease.
RESULTS: There are numerous sub-types or variants of both HPV6 and HPV11. These sub-types have different activities at least in-vitro. The numbers of different HPV types within RRP tissue may be more extensive than initially appeared. This depends specifically upon the HPV types tested for.
CONCLUSION: The clinical differences between HPV6 and HPV11 disease may not be accurately predictable as these viruses exist in numerous sub-types. Also, RRP tissue may contain more than one subtype or even be co-infected with other viruses that may influence outcome. In-vitro studies upon cell lines are a reasonable starting point for evaluation of these differences.