METHODS: To verify the causative agent of this outbreak and characterise the viral genes, the genes encoding the structural proteins C/prM/E of viruses isolated from local residents were sequenced followed by mutation and phylogenetic analysis. Recombination, selection pressure, potential secondary structure and three-dimensional structure analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Phylogenetic analysis revealed that all epidemic strains were of the cosmopolitan DENV-2 genotype and were most closely related to the Zhejiang strain (MH010629, 2017) and then the Malaysia strain (KJ806803, 2013). Compared with the sequence of DENV-2SS, 151 base substitutions were found in the sequences of 89 isolates; these substitutions resulted in 20 non-synonymous mutations, of which 17 mutations existed in all samples (two in the capsid protein, six in the prM/M proteins, and nine in the envelope proteins). Moreover, amino acid substitutions at the 602nd (E322:Q → H) and 670th (E390: N → S) amino acids may have enhanced the virulence of the epidemic strains. One new DNA binding site and five new protein binding sites were observed. Two polynucleotide binding sites and seven protein binding sites were lost in the epidemic strains compared with DENV-2SS. Meanwhile, five changes were found in helical regions. Minor changes were observed in helical transmembrane and disordered regions. The 429th amino acid of the E protein switched from a histamine (positively charged) to an asparagine (neutral) in all 89 isolated strains. No recombination events or positive selection pressure sites were observed. To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyse the genetic characteristics of epidemic strains in the first dengue outbreak in Hunan Province in inland China.
CONCLUSIONS: The causative agent is likely to come from Zhejiang Province, a neighbouring province where dengue fever broke out in 2017. This study may help clarify the intrinsic geographical relatedness of DENV-2 and contribute to further research on pathogenicity and vaccine development.
METHODS: We utilized data from genome-wide association studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, involving approximately 9,269 cases and 12,530 controls of European descent, to evaluate associations between pancreatic cancer risk and genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels. Conventional MR analyses were performed using individual-level and summary-level data.
RESULTS: Using genetic instruments, we did not find evidence of associations between genetically predicted plasma n-6 PUFA levels and pancreatic cancer risk [estimates per one SD increase in each PUFA-specific weighted genetic score using summary statistics: linoleic acid odds ratio (OR) = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.98-1.02; arachidonic acid OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.99-1.01; and dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87-1.02]. The OR estimates remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for covariates, using individual-level data or summary statistics, or stratification by age and sex.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that variations of genetically determined plasma n-6 PUFA levels are not associated with pancreatic cancer risk.
IMPACT: These results suggest that modifying n-6 PUFA levels through food sources or supplementation may not influence risk of pancreatic cancer.