Enteroviruses: Dose Response Models

From QMRAwiki
Revision as of 13:41, 4 October 2011 by QianLeil (talk | contribs) (Summary Data)
Jump to: navigation, search

Enteroviruses

Author: Yin Huang
If you want to download this chapter in pdf format, please click here
If you want to download the excel spreadsheet of tables, please click the captions of tables. If you want to download a specific figure, just click on the figure


General overview

Enterovirus, a kind of small (30 nm), nonenveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses, belongs to the family Picornaviridae. While most of the enterovirus infections are relatively mild and result in complete recovery of the patient, they can also cause severe and fatal diseases such as meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, neonatal sepsis, and polio. Infection occurs mainly via fecal-oral transmission and less commonly by respiratory droplets. While no known non-human reservoirs have been identified, water-borne, foodborne, and blood-borne transmissions have been reported (Stalkup and Chilukuri 2002).




Summary Data

Cliver (1981) challenged pigs with Porcine enterovirus type 3 and 7 via oral exposure route.

Table 3.1. Summary of the enterovirus data and best fits
Experiment number Reference Host type/pathogen strain Route/number of doses Dose units Response Best-fit model Optimized parameters ID50
1 Cliver, 1981 pigs/ Porcine enterovirus type 3 oral/3 pfu infection Exponential k = 2.96E-04 2340.15
2* Cliver, 1981 pigs/ Porcine enterovirus type 7 oral/3 pfu infection Exponential k = 3.75E-03 185.10

The data from different experiments were not able to be statistically pooled.


Optimized Models and Fitting Analyses

Optimization Output for experiment 1

Table 3.2. Pigs/ Porcine enterovirus type 3 Strain model data
Dose Infected Non-infected Total
1.00E+02 0 3 3
2.50E+02 0 6 6
1.00E+03 2 4 6
Cliver, 1981.


Table 3.3: Goodness of fit and model selection
Model Deviance Δ Degrees
of Freedom
χ20.95,1
p-value
χ20.95,m-k
p-value
Exponential 1.24 3.00E-04 2 3.84
0.986
5.99
0.537
Beta Poisson 1.24 1 3.84
0.265
Exponential is best fitting model
Table 3.4 Optimized parameters for the best fitting (Exponential), obtained from 10,000 bootstrap iterations
Parameter or value MLE Estimate Percentiles
0.50% 2.5% 5% 95% 97.5% 99.5%
k 2.96E-04 2.40E-17 2.40E-17 2.40E-17 7.19E-04 7.19E-04 1.03E-03
LD50 (spores) 2340.15 676.57 963.88 963.88 2.89E+16 2.89E+16 2.89E+16


Figure 3.1 Parameter histogram for exponential model (uncertainty of the parameter)
Figure 3.2 Exponential model plot, with confidence bounds around optimized model




Optimization Output for experiment 2

Table 3.5 pigs/ Porcine enterovirus type 7
Dose Infected Non-infected Total
2.50E+02 4 2 6
2.50E+02 3 3 6
1.00E+03 5 0 5
Cliver, 1981.


Table 3.6: Goodness of fit and model selection
Model Deviance Δ Degrees
of Freedom
χ20.95,1
p-value
χ20.95,m-k
p-value
Exponential 0.61 1.00E-04 2 3.84
0.994
5.99
0.736
Beta Poisson 0.61 1 3.84
0.433
Exponential is best fitting model
Table 3.7 Optimized parameters for the best fitting (exponential), obtained from 10,000 bootstrap iterations
Parameter or value MLE Estimate Percentiles
0.50% 2.5% 5% 95% 97.5% 99.5%
k 3.75E-03 1.83E-03 2.19E-03 2.19E-03 5.62E-03 5.62E-03 5.62E-03
LD50 (spores) 185.10 123.36 123.36 123.36 316.32 316.32 378.96


Figure 3.3 Parameter histogram for exponential model (uncertainty of the parameter)
Figure 3.4 Exponential model plot, with confidence bounds around optimized model



Summary

The different LD50 for these two experiments indicates various virulence between pathogen strains.




References

Cliver, D. O. (1981). "Experimental infection by waterborne enteroviruses." Journal of Food Protection 44: 861-865.

Stalkup, J. R. and S. Chilukuri (2002). "Enterovirus infections: a review of clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment." Dermatologic clinics 20(2): 217-223.