This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Plummer, G. Articles by Goodheart, C. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Plummer, G. Articles by Goodheart, C. R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Virol. 1969 November; 4(5): 738-741
Copyright © 1969 American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Four Horse Herpesviruses

Department of Microbiology, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois 60153
Institute for Biomedical Research, Education and Research Foundation, American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois 60610

ABSTRACT

Four equine herpesviruses (equine abortion virus, equine herpesvirus types 2 and 3, and equine cytomegalovirus) were compared. The equine abortion virus did not cross-neutralize with any of the other viruses, but the other three did show varying degrees of cross-neutralization among themselves. Equine abortion virus grew more quickly in tissue cultures than did the others, and attained higher titers of infectivity in the culture fluid; it also formed plaques in a wider range of tissue culture species, although the other three were not specific for one tissue culture system only, in that they would multiply in rabbit and cat kidney cultures. The densities of the deoxyribonucleic acids of all four viruses were in the range 1.716 to 1.717 g/ml (a guanine plus cytosine content of 57 to 58%). Taxonomic separation, as a distinct serotype, of equine abortion virus from the other herpesviruses seems to be justified. The other three are closely related to one another. They should perhaps be regarded as separate viruses and termed horse herpesviruses types 2, 3, and 4, although an alternative view would be to regard them as variants of a single virus type. The question of whether types 2, 3, and 4, or any other herpesviruses, should be placed in a phylogenetically distinct subgroup, known as cytomegaloviruses, is a moot point.