Abstract
Coxsackie A16 (CA16) and Enterovirus 71 (EV71) are members of the picornaviridae family and are associated with hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD), in rare cases also to acute neurological diseases. HFMD outbreaks have been reported from many parts of the world, especially Southeast Asia. The objective of the study was to analyze CA16 and EV71 seroepidemiologically in the population of Frankfurt/M., Germany. A total of 696 individuals (349 males and 347 females, divided into seven different age groups, 1–4, 5–9, 10–14, 15–19, 20–39, 40–59 and >60 years) were tested for serum antibodies against CA16 and EV71 by the use of a microneutralization test. Sera were collected at the Frankfurt university hospital from patients suffering from other diseases between March and September 2006. CA16 and EV71 infections were observed to be widely present in the population. The age-adjusted seroprevalence for individuals ≥1 year was found to be 62.9% for CA16 and 42.8% for EV71 without a gender-specific significant difference. Only 12.0 and 27.0% of the children aged 1–4 had antibodies to EV71 and CA16, respectively – indicating that 88 and 73% of the children in this age group were susceptible to the infection. A total of 213 individuals (30.6%) was seropositive for both viruses, 303 (43.5%) showed neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) to at least one of the two viruses. A total of 180 individuals (25.9%) revealed no antibodies. High CA16 and EV71 antibody titers were found especially in the age group of the 10- to 14-year-olds, without gender-specific difference. The seroprevalence study demonstrates a common spread of CA16 and EV71 in Germany, but a relatively high susceptibility of the younger population to CA16 and EV71. Obviously, the manifestation rate, i.e., distinct disease of these infections is low.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Coxsackievirus A 16 (CA16) and Enterovirus 71 (EV71) are members of the picornaviridae family. On the basis of molecular typing, EV71 can be divided into three genogroups (A, B, C), and further sub-divided into genotypes B1–5 and C1–5 [1, 2].
CA16 and EV71 are transmitted through the fecal–oral route and smear contact to throat discharges or fluid from blisters [3]. While they are commonly associated with hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) – sometimes only with mouth disease (herpangina) – the infections may also result in aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, or poliomyelitis-like paralysis. Furthermore, pulmonary edema or hemorrhage is described as complications of infection in some cases. Since the first case of EV71 infection emerged in California 1969 [4], outbreaks have followed in many parts of the world, especially in Southeast Asia. Also, in Europe, smaller outbreaks have been described [5, 6]. Up to date, a mild disease is the predominant clinical feature of infection; serious central nervous system complications are uncommon. Nevertheless, neurological involvement (e.g., encephalitis) occurs and is the most serious complication, partly with fatal outcome [7, 8]. Some fatal cases were reported for recent EV71 epidemics in Taiwan, Mongolia and China [9]. In the Mongolian outbreak 2008, 83% of the reported HFMD cases were seen in children who were younger than 10 years. Of all infected people, 10% were younger than 1 year (http://www.isid.org/ 2008).
In Germany, HFMD is a sporadic disease in children – mostly associated with CA16 infections and less common with EV71. However, epidemic waves of single enterovirus types occurred when herd immunity decreased [10]. Before eradication of poliovirus from Europe, many serum surveys were performed to assure immunity [11–14]; only few of them covered non-polio enteroviruses [3, 11]. A serum survey on CA16 is still missing. In Europe, non-polio enteroviruses remain an important cause of illness in the absence of vaccine and effective antiviral therapy [15–17].
Therefore, this study was performed to get additional information on the seroprevalence of enteroviruses CA16 and EV71 in Germany, i.e., to rule out population’s immunity and to allow a direct comparison of CA16 and EV71 seroprevalence in the same cohort.
Methods
Collective
A representative panel of 696 serum samples were obtained from patients who had been serologically tested for other viral infections or immune status at the Institute of Medical Virology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt/Main. Sera from Germans as well as from foreigners, who lived in Germany, were included in the survey. Inclusion criteria were age and sex. For age distribution, seven age groups were chosen (1–4, 5–9, 10–14, 15–19, 20–39, 40–59 and >60 years), with each group having 48–50 females and 49–50 males. The sera were collected between March and September 2006 and stored at −20°C until testing. Exclusion criteria were suspected or laboratory-proved enterovirus infection.
Neutralization assay
A microneutralization test using CA16 and EV71 was performed as previously described [18, 19]. Serum of known CA16 and EV71 neutralizing activity was included in each test to examine reproducibility of results. Briefly, sera were inactivated at 56°C for 30 min before use, diluted twofold from 1:10 to 1:1,280, and then incubated for 1 h at 37°C (in a CO2 incubator) with 100 tissue culture infective dose50 (TCID50) of challenge virus (either CA16 or EV71). CA16 and EV71 (genogroup C2) virus isolates (kindly provided by Dr. Sabine Diedrich, German reference centre for poliomyelitis and enteroviruses”, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin) had been characterized previously by specific monoclonal antibodies using immunofluorescence technique as well as by cDNA sequence analysis in the VP1 gene region subsequent to specific nucleic acid amplification by RT–PCR [3]. After the incubation period, 50 μl of the serum-virus suspension was added to monolayer of 1 day old human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (CaCo2). Cell controls and a reference serum sample were included in each batch. Each test serum was investigated in duplicate. After incubation for 10 days, the highest dilution of serum that prevented the development of cytopathic effects (CPE) in both wells was recorded. A serum sample was considered positive, if antibodies were present at a dilution 1:≥10 of the inoculated serum specimen. If the final serum dilution of the duplicates differs more than one stage, the result was rejected and the test was repeated.
Calculation of the antibody prevalence
For statistical analysis, 95% confidence intervals [CI] for proportions and the chi-square test (Yates rectified) were calculated. Differences with an error probability of P < 0.05 were regarded as significant. The statistical analysis was performed using the BiAS program for Windows 8.3 (Epsilon Verlag, Hochheim Darmstadt 2007).
Results
Overall seroprevalence of CA16 and EV71
CA16 and EV71 infections are widely present in the population: The age-adjusted CA16 seroprevalence for individuals ≥1 year was found to be 62.9% (CI 59.2–66.5%) for CA16 and 42.8% (CI 39.1–46.6%) for EV71. The CA16 seroprevalence was significantly higher than that for EV71 in individuals ≥1 year old (P < 0.001).
No significant gender-specific difference in seroprevalence was observed for both CA16 and EV71 – 62.8% (218/347) of the females and 63.0% (220/349) of the males (P = 0.98) showed neutralizing antibodies to CA16, while 44.4% (154/347 females) and 41.3% (144/349 males) (P = 0.45) were tested EV71 seropositive (Fig. 1).
Age-dependent seroprevalence of CA16 and EV71
The analysis of the different age groups (n = 98–100) revealed that CA16 seroprevalence increased from 27.0% in the first age group (1–4 years) to 52.0% in the subsequent group (5–9 years old), and thereafter to 83.0% in the 40–59-year-old individuals. In the age group of the 10–14-year-old individuals, a plateau (73.5% seropositive) relative to that attained by individuals in the other age groups [ranging from 15–19-year-old (64.0%) to the >60-year-old individuals (72.4%)] was reached (Fig. 1 – upper panel). There was no significant gender-specific difference.
In comparison to CA16, the overall seroprevalence of EV71 was found lower in most age groups. There was a significant increase in the EV71 seroprevalence from 12.0% among 1- to 4-year-olds to 49.0% among the 5- to 9-year-olds (P < 0.001). The EV71 seroprevalence attained its peak in this age group (5–9-years) with no further significant rise or decline in the subsequent age groups (Fig. 1–lower panel). However, a little, but no significant gender-specific difference in seroprevalence was observed in the age group 15–19 years (female > male) as indicated by the 95% CIs.
Age-dependent immunity to HFMD
A total of 30.6% (CI 27.2–34.2%; 112/347 females and 101/349 males; P = 0.38) of all tested individuals revealed neutralizing antibodies against both virus types, while 43.5% (CI 39.8–47.3%; 141/347 females and 162/349 males; P = 0.14) were seropositive only for one of both viruses. Of all tested individuals, 180 (25.9%) (CI: 22.6–29.3%; 94/347 females and 86/349 males; P = 0.52) had no detectable antibodies against CA16 or EV71 (Fig. 2). There was an age-related decrease of CA16/EV71 seronegative individuals. Conversely, the fraction of individuals seropositive for one or both of the tested viruses increased.
Titer distribution of neutralizing antibodies in seropositive individuals
To analyze the immunity level, three NtAb titer ranges were defined: 1:10–1:20 (low level), 1:40–1:320 (medium level) and 1:640 to 1:≥1,280 (high level).
The analysis of the titers of NtAb against CA16 and EV71 independent of age and gender showed that all CA16 NtAb levels were approximately equally distributed. In contrast, patients presenting low-level EV71 NtAb dominated while high-level EV71 NtAb levels were significantly less likely (Fig. 3).
Considering the percentage distribution of NtAb levels of all NtAb positive patients, a significant difference in the distribution pattern between CA16 and EV71 (Fig. 3 – right panel) was observed. From the 438 CA16 NtAb positive sera, 19.0% presented high level NtAb (1:640–1:1,280), 55% medium level (1:40–1:320) and 26% low level (1:10–1:20), while for the 298 EV71 seropositives, 8.0% had high level, 42% medium level and 50% low level NtAb.
Age-dependent level of immunity to CA16 and EV71 infections
The analysis of the immunity level in relation to the age of the individuals showed that the number of sera with high NtAb levels to CA16 was highest in the age group of 10- to 14-year-olds followed by the 40- to 59-year-olds. The number of individuals with low NtAb level increased with age – except the 40–59-year-old group (Fig. 4 – upper panel).
In contrast to CA16, EV71 seropositive individuals generally showed lower NtAb titers. With increasing age, the number of individuals presenting medium-level NtAb titers decreased. High EV71 antibody level was mostly present in the group of 10- to 14-year-olds (Fig. 4 – lower panel). There were no significant gender-specific differences (data not shown).
Discussion
CA16 and EV71 are associated with sporadic cases and epidemics of HFMD. Between 1970 and 2000, three separate waves of EV71 activity emerged in the world, one in each decade [20]. The most severe EV71 epidemic occurred in Taiwan in 1998 – more than 130,000 cases of HFMD and fatal EV71 cases were reported [21, 22]. In China, a still ongoing HFMD epidemic has affected more than 30,000 children [23]. Other parts of Asia (e.g., Mongolia, Vietnam) were also involved, mainly affecting children [2, 9]. Many thousands of infected people were reported in 2007–2008 (http://www.isid.org/ 2008). Furthermore, sporadic EV71 cases have been reported from several European countries [5, 6, 24–27]. In some of these EV71 cases, genotype C4 was identified. This genotype was reportedly associated with the recent high mortality in China [5]. EV71 was also the most important virus responsible for outbreaks of acute neurological diseases in Australia [28–31] and the United States [32, 33]. Even though no genotype-specific sequences which are responsible for neurovirulence could be identified, the strains causing brain stem encephalitis and pulmonary edema in the Far East are similar and have arisen since 1997 [34]. Different EV71 genotype analyses had shown that EV71 genotypes have changed with time in the United States and Japan [35] and are co-circulating worldwide. In Germany, genogroup B circulated before 2000, followed by strains which predominantly belonged to the C1 (in the years 2000–2005) and C2 genogroup (in the years 2006–2007). Overall, genogroup C1 is predominating in Europe [3]. In Germany as well as in the United States, E71 belongs to the 15 most common enterovirus serotypes [3, 36].
CA16 co-circulated with EV71, however, without causing any severe illnesses [34]. EV71 illness seems to be more severe with significantly greater frequency of serious complications and fatality than illness caused by CA16 [37]. Thus, CA16 and EV71 infection have emerged as an important public problem. While in temperate climates, enteroviruses’ outbreaks mostly take place during summer and autumn, in tropical areas, infections occur with high incidence throughout the year [38, 39].
Our investigations revealed an endemic spread of CA16 and EV71 infections in Germany similar to other parts of the world [34, 40, 41]. The EV71 NtAb assay used for this study detects specific antibodies regardless of the genogroup (antigenic cross-reactivity) [42].
The age-adjusted seroprevalence of CA16 significantly exceeds that of EV71 (62.9 vs. 42.8%). Epidemic waves could not be traced by this cross-sectional study. Neither for CA16 nor for EV71 could a gender-specific significant difference be seen (CA16–62.8% ♀ vs. 63.0% ♂; EV71–44.4% ♀ vs. 41.3% ♂). Our data show that 88% of the children aged 1–4 are susceptible to EV71 while about 2/3 of all 1- to 4-year-olds are susceptible to CA16 (Fig. 1). There are close similarities between CA16 and Coxsackie A9 on the one hand and EV71 and Coxsackie B3 on the other hand when our data are compared with age-related prevalence rates of other enteroviruses in Germany [11]. Our data also show that most of the infections are acquired during childhood (CA16) or early adolescence (EV71). In these age groups, the highest antibody titers were observed. The slope of CA16 and EV71 seroprevalence in young age groups indicates that infection beyond (pre)school years is uncommon. This finding is supported by the observation that a high proportion of children <5 years old were seronegative. The positive immune status of children reached a steady state in the age groups 5–9-years and 10–14-years for EV71 and CA16, respectively. Furthermore, the number of individuals with high level anti-EV71 NtAb declined with age. This means that reinfection of the elderly is rare; otherwise, the number of individuals with high level NtAb should increase with age. In contrast to EV71, a second peak of high NtAb level was recorded for CA16 in the 40- to 50-year-old group, indicating a second, probably smaller epidemic wave; the overall seroprevalence curve of CA16 was not affected, as mentioned earlier. Seroprevalences of enteroviruses are surprisingly stable over decades, as previously shown for coxsackievirus B types [11, 18].
Immunity to CA16 and EV71 is mainly dependent on humoral factors, i.e., formation of neutralizing serum antibodies, although it is known that enterovirus infections also induce T-cell immunity [43]. It is not clear at present whether every individual with a low level immunity or no detectable neutralizing antibody is susceptible to infection. Particularly, the elderly might be protected by a long-lasting immunity even if antibody titer has declined – otherwise, persistent high antibody titers would be detectable throughout life.
Concerning immune protection against HFMD, we found that 30.6% of all tested individuals had antibodies both to CA16 and to EV71, while 43.5% were reactive only against one of both viruses.
While CA16 seroprevalence in Germany is recorded by us for the first time, EV71 seroprevalence was recently investigated by another German group [3]. They found among 6- to 10-year-old children 56.4%, among children aged 10–15 67.2% seropositive. Comparable age groups in our collective showed a prevalence of 49% each. Taking the 95% CI into account, there is no significant difference between both studies. In the report of Diedrich et al. [3], a maximum rate of seropositivity (75%) was recorded in individuals aged 20–40. The level remained stable in elderly groups. In our study, positive immune status peaked in a younger age group (5–9 years old) on a lower level (49%; 95% CI 38.9–59.2%). There might be some reasons for this discrepancy: In the study of Diedrich et al. [3], “randomly selected stored serum samples from healthy children and adults who participated at a survey in 1997/1998” were used, while our samples were collected in 2006. So, a time-of-sample-related change in seroprevalence in Germany cannot be excluded.
In conclusion, CA16 and EV71 infections are common in children and are acquired largely in the (pre)school years. Spread of these viruses is lower in the other age groups. The seroprevalence data show a continuous circulation of CA16 and EV71 in Germany similar to the majority of other enteroviruses [11]. Although EV71 is not often isolated in Europe and the seroprevalence is lower than for CA16, it is, however, an important enterovirus for differential diagnosis of neurological diseases such as meningitis and paralytic disease.
References
Mizuta K, Abiko C, Murata T, Matsuzaki Y, Itagaki T, Sanjoh K, Sakamoto M, Hongo S, Murayama S, Hayasaka K (2005) Frequent importation of enterovirus 71 from surrounding countries into the local community of Yamagata, Japan, between 1998 and 2003. J Clin Microbiol 43:6171–6175
Tu PV, Thao NT, Perera D, Huu TK, Tien NT, Thuong TC, How OM, Cardosa MJ, McMinn PC (2007) Epidemiologic, virologic investigation of hand, foot, mouth disease, southern Vietnam, 2005. Emerg Infect Dis 13(11):1733–1741
Diedrich S, Weinbrecht A, Schreier E (2009) Seroprevalence and molecular epidemiology of enterovirus 71 in Germany. Arch Virol 154(7):1139–1142
Schmidt NJ, Lennette EH, Ho HH (1974) An apparently new enterovirus isolated from patients with disease of the central nervous system. J Infect Dis 129:304–309
Ortner B, Huang CW, Schmid D, Mutz I, Wewalka G, Allerberger F, Yang JY, Huemer HP (2009) Epidemiology of enterovirus types causing neurological disease in Austria 1999–2007: detection of clusters of echovirus 30 and enterovirus 71 and analysis of prevalent genotypes. J Med Virol 81(2):317–324
van der Sanden S, Koopmans M, Uslu G, van der Avoort H; on behalf of the Dutch Working Group for Clinical Virology (2009) Epidemiology of enterovirus 71 in the Netherlands, 1963–2008. J Clin Microbiol 47(9):2826–2833
Chan LG, Parashar UD, Lye MS, Ong FGL, Zaki SR, Alexander JP, Ho KK, Han LL, Pallansch MA, Suleiman AB, Jegathesan M, Anderson LJ (2000) Deaths of children during an outbreak of hand, foot and mouth disease in Sarawak, Malaysia: clinical and pathological characteristics of the disease. Clin Infect Dis 31:678–683
Hamaguchi T, Fujisawa H, Sakai K, Okino S, Kurosaki N, Nishimura Y, Shimizu H, Yamada M (2008) Acute encephalitis caused by intrafamilial transmission of enterovirus 71 in adult. Emerg Infect Dis 14(5):828–830
Zhang Y, Nan LJ, Wu GS, Tan XJ, Xu DD, Gu SY, Zhu SL, Yan DM, An HQ, Xu WB (2009) The epidemiologic, virological analysis of an outbreak of hand, foot, mouth disease in Inner Mongolia in 2007. Bing Du Xue Bao 25(3):159–165
Buxbaum S, Berger A, Preiser W, Rabenau HF, Doerr HW (2001) Enterovirus infections in Germany: comparative evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic methods. Infection 29(3):138–142
Weber B, Rabenau HF, Cinatl J, Maass G, Doerr HW (1994) Quantitative detection of neutralizing antibodies against polioviruses and non-polio enteroviruses (NPEV) using an automated microneutralization assay: a seroepidemiologic survey. Zbl Bakt Int J Med Microbiol 280:540–549
Franck S, Allwinn R, Rabenau HF, Doerr HW (1999) Epidemiological analysis of immunity to poliovirus after termination of an era of vaccination with OPV in Germany. An analysis of the German association against viral diseases (DVV). Zentralbl Bakteriol 289(4):475–481
Diedrich S, Claus H, Schreier E (2002) Immunity status against poliomyelitis in Germany: determination of cut-off values in International Units. BMC Infect Dis 2:2
Diedrich S, Schreier E (2007) The German health interview and examination survey for children and adolescents (KiGGS): state of immunity against poliomyelitis in German children. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 50(5–6):771–774
Da Silva EE, Winkler MT, Pallansch MA (1996) Role of enterovirus 71 in acute flaccid paralysis after the eradication of poliovirus in Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2:231–233
Palacios G, Oberste MS (2005) Enteroviruses as agents of emerging infectious diseases. J Neurovirol 11:424–433
Modlin JF (2007) Enterovirus deja vu. N Engl J Med 356:1204–1205
Doerr HW (1973) Coxsackie B virus neutralising antibodies in myocarditis and pleurodynia. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 98(29):1396–1400
Rabenau HF, Weber B (1994) Evaluation of a new automated microneutralization assay for the quantitative detection of neutralizing antibodies against enteroviruses. Zentralbl Bakteriol 280:534–539
Bible JM, Pantelidis P, Chan PK, Tong CY (2007) Genetic evolution of enterovirus 71: epidemiological and pathological implications. Rev Med Virol 17:371–379
Ho M, Chen ER, Hsu KH, Twu SJ, Chen KT, Tsai SF, Wang JR, Shih SR (1999) An epidemic of enterovirus 71 infection in Taiwan. Taiwan Enterovirus Epidemic working Group. N Engl J Med 341(13):929–935
Liu CC, Tseng HW, Wang SM, Wang JR, Su IJ (2000) An outbreak of enterovirus 71 infection in Taiwan, 1998: epidemiologic and clinical manifestations. J ClinVirol 17:23–30
Xiao XL, He YQ, Yu YG, Yang H, Chen G, Li HF, Zhang JW, Liu DM, Li XF, Yang XQ, Wu H (2009) Simultaneous detection of human enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 in clinical specimens by multiplex real-time PCR with an internal amplification control. Arch Virol 154:121–125
Bible JM, Iturriza-Gomara M, Megson B, Brown D, Pantelidis P, Earl P, Bendig J, Tong CY (2008) Molecular epidemiology of human enterovirus 71 in the United Kingdom from 1998 to 2006. J Clin Microbiol 46:3192–3200
Richter J, Koptides D, Tryfonos C, Christodoulou C (2006) Molecular typing of enteroviruses associated with viral meningitis in Cyprus, 2000–2002. J Med Microbiol 55:1035–1041
Huemer HP, Ortner B, Huang CW, Schmid D, Mutz I, Wewalka G, Yang JY, Allerberger F (2008) Isolating Asian enterovirus 71 subgenogroup C4 in two Austrian clinical samples from 2004. Euro Surveill 13:18922
Kehle J, Roth B, Metzger C, Pfitzner A, Enders G (2003) Molecular characterization of an Enterovirus 71 causing neurological disease in Germany. J Neurovirol 9:126–128
Gilbert GL, Dickson KE, Waters MJ, Kennett ML, Land SA, Sneddon M (1988) Outbreak of enterovirus 71 infection in Victoria, Australia, with a high incidence of neurologic involvement. Pediatr Infect Dis J 7:484–488
McMinn P, Stratov I, Nagarajan L, Davis S (2001) Neurological manifestations of enterovirus 71 infection in children during an outbreak of hand, foot, and mouth disease in western Australia. Clin Infect Dis 32:236–242
Samuda GM, Chang WK, Yeung CY, Tang PS (1987) Monoplegia caused by enterovirus 71: an outbreak in Hong Kong. Pediatr Infect Dis J 6:206–208
Ang LW, Koh BK, Chan KP, Chua LT, James L, Goh KT (2009) Epidemiology and control of hand, foot and mouth disease in Singapore, 2001–2007. Ann Acad Med Singapore 38(2):106–112
Alexander JP, Baden L, Pallansch MA, Anderson LJ (1994) Enterovirus 71 infections and neurologic disease: United States, 1977–1991. J Infect Dis 169:905–908
Hayward JC, Gillespie SM, Kaplan KM, Packer R, Pallansch M, Plotkin S, Schonberger LB (1989) Outbreak of poliomyelitis-like paralysis associated with enterovirus 71. Pediatr Infect Dis J 8:611–616
Ho M (2000) Enterovirus 71: the virus, its infections and outbreaks. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 33(4):205–216
Iwai M, Masaki A, Hasegawa S, Obara M, Horimoto E, Nakamura K, Tanaka Y, Endo K, Tanaka K, Ueda J, Shiraki K, Kurata T, Takizawa T (2009) Genetic changes of coxsackievirus A16, enterovirus 71 isolated from hand, foot, mouth disease patients in Toyama, Japan between 1981 and 2007. Jpn J Infect Dis 62(4):254–259
Khetsuriani N, Lamonte-Fowlkes A, Oberst S, Pallansch MA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) Enterovirus surveillance-United States, 1970–2005. MMWR Surveill Summ 55:1–20
Chang LY, Lin TY, Huang YC, Tsao KC, Shih SR, Kuo ML, Ning HC, Chung PW, Kang CM (1999) Comparison of enterovirus 71, coxsackie-virus A16 clinical illnesses during the Taiwan enterovirus epidemic, 1998. Pediatr Infect Dis J 18(12):1092–1096
Shou-Chien C, Hsiao-Ling C, Tsong-Rong Y, Yan-Tzong C, Kow-Tong C (2007) An eight-year study of epidemiologic features of enterovirus 71 infection in Taiwan. Am J Trop Med Hyg 77(1):188–191
Strikas RA, Anderson LJ, Parker RA (1986) Temporal and geographic patterns of isolates of nonpolio enterovirus in the United States, 1970–1983. J Infect Dis 153:346–351
Gomes Mde L, de Castro CM, Oliveira MJ, da Silva EE (2002) Neutralizing antibodies to enterovirus 71 in Belém, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 97(1):47–49
Ooi EE, Phoon MC, Ishak B, Chan SH (2002) Seroepidemiology of human enterovirus 71, Singapore. Emerg Infect Dis 8(9):995–997
Kung SH, Wang SF, Huang CW, Hsu CC, Liu HF, Yang JY (2007) Genetic and antigenic analyses of enterovirus 71 isolates in Taiwan during 1998–2005. Clin Microbiol Infect 13:782–787
Juhela S, Hyöty H, Lönnrot M, Roivainen M, Simell O, Ilonen J (1998) Enterovirus infections and enterovirus specific T-cell responses in infancy. J Med Virol 54(3):226–232
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Gabriele Bauer for her excellent technical assistance and to Dr. Henry Ogbomo for critically reading the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rabenau, H.F., Richter, M. & Doerr, H.W. Hand, foot and mouth disease: seroprevalence of Coxsackie A16 and Enterovirus 71 in Germany. Med Microbiol Immunol 199, 45–51 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-009-0133-6
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00430-009-0133-6