Dear Editor, We read with great interest the paper of C. Strady et al. on leptospirosis and nephropathia epidemica (NE) in NorthEastern-France [1]. Herein, and as questioned already before [2], the authors refer once more to the French Institut Pasteur Humain or IPH strain 90-13 for screening Puumala virus (PUUV)-induced NE cases in France with IFA and/or ELISA. Isolation of this strain, announced as the first human PUUV isolate in France and in West-Europe, was published in 1995, and complete sequencing of its medium (M) RNA segment, respectively small (S) RNA segment was introduced in GenBank under respective accession numbers U22418 and U 22423 [3]. From the moment of its reported isolation in 1990, IPH 90-13 was acknowledged being more sensitive than other, nonautochthonous PUUV strains for picking up local French NE cases in IFA format [4]. However, a remarkable similarity was noted with CH 13891, a Belgian rodent strain already in use [4]. CH 13891 had been sent in 1987 by one of us (G vd G) to Pasteur Institute, Paris, in the frame of a Franco-Belgian collaboration to study emerging NE, and had been used successfully since then for serodiagnosing French NE cases, likewise in an IFA format [5]. This strain had been isolated in 1985 from a bank vole captured in the early ‘80s around Turnhout, North-Belgium [6], thus constituting in fact the earliest West-European PUUV isolate, available one year after Sotkamo, the prototype PUUV strain from Finland, and Hallnas from Sweden, both isolated in 1984. Moreover, the very first (1983) Belgian NE cases had been already serodiagnosed in IFA with this antigen, then called “Turnhout HFRS antigen” [7]. However, and as with so many other early hantavirus isolates (including also the Finnish Sotkamo) from the ‘80s pioneer times, CG 13891 was introduced in GenBank only years after a first characterisation, in this case finally in 1999. The Belgian rodent strain, isolated 5 years prior to the putative French human strain, appeared to have a 100% identical S and M RNA sequence pattern. The French and American authors of the original IPH 90-13 report concluded duly that a contamination with the Belgian CG 13891 had occurred earlier in the Paris lab, and published two successive Errata [8, 9]. They also corrected the GenBank situation, re-stating under accession numbers U22418 and U 22423 that “Sequence entry was originally reported as strain 90-13, but later found to be a laboratory contamination of strain CG 13891”. Nevertheless, many French clinicians and even serological labs continue nowadays to use the IPH 90-13 denomination for their serological diagnosis, thus referring in fact to a strain that is proven since 1999 to be non-existent [2]. In summary, and as confirmed again in the current study [1], the Paris and subsequently the Lyon reference labs for hemorrhagic fevers have been using from 1987 on CG 13891 in an IFA format, before adding from 2000 on an ELISA format, and later even a recombinant ELISA form, all derived from the same Belgian strain. In a technical paper describing the J. Clement (*) : P. Maes :M. Van Ranst Hantavirus Reference Centre, Laboratory of Clinical Virology & Rega Institute for Medical Research, University of Leuven, U.Z. Gasthuisberg, Herestraat, 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium e-mail: jan.clement@uzleuven.be
Read full abstract