RESULTS: Six EV-71 isolates from an outbreak in Malaysia, in 1997, were sequenced completely. These isolates were identified as EV-71 subgenotypes, B3, B4 and C2. A phylogenetic tree that correlated well with the present enterovirus classification scheme was established using these full genome sequences and all other available full genome sequences of EV-71 and human enterovirus A (HEV-A). Using the 5' UTR, P2 and P3 genomic regions, however, isolates of EV-71 subgenotypes B3 and C4 segregated away from other EV-71 subgenotypes into a cluster together with coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16/G10) and EV-71 subgenotype C2 clustered with CV-A8. Results from the similarity plot analyses supported the clustering of these isolates with other HEV-A. In contrast, at the same genomic regions, a CV-A16 isolate, Tainan5079, clustered with EV-71. This suggests that amongst EV-71 and CV-A16, only the structural genes were conserved. The 3' end of the virus genome varied and consisted of sequences highly similar to various HEV-A viruses. Numerous recombination crossover breakpoints were identified within the non-structural genes of some of these newer EV-71 subgenotypes.
CONCLUSION: Phylogenetic evidence obtained from analyses of the full genome sequence supports the possible occurrence of inter-typic recombination involving EV-71 and various HEV-A, including CV-A16, the most common causal agent of HFMD. It is suggested that these recombination events played important roles in the emergence of the various EV-71 subgenotypes.
METHODS: Secondary analysis of data extracted from the British Household Panel Survey, a national longitudinal survey (n=5547). Analysis to ascertain whether patterns of attendance for dental check-ups for a period of 10 years (1991-2001) were associated with risk factors for oral cancer such as age, sex, education, social class, smoking status and smoking intensity.
RESULTS: Males, aged over 40 years, less educated manual workers and smokers were significantly less likely to attend for dental check-ups compared with females and younger, higher educated, higher socio-economic class non-smokers (p < 0.05). Throughout the 10-year period, young people, more than older people, had progressively lower odds ratios of attending. Those with more education used dental services more. Heavy smokers were infrequent attendees.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that opportunistic oral cancer screening by dentists is not feasible to include high-risk groups as they are not regular attendees over 10 years. Those who would be screened would be the low-risk groups. However, dentists should continue screening all patients as oral precancers are also found in regular attendees. More should be done to encourage the high-risk groups to visit their dentists.