It is thus possible that such strains, depending on their ability to propagate may have first spread to neighboring areas of AIIMS and later to distant areas and could be another possible explanation for high prevalence of G12 at AIIMS. Among the common and unusual

rotavirus strains, we detected G1P[8], G2P[4], G9P[8], G12P[6], G9P[4] and G1P[4] at both hospitals. However, strain G12P[6] strain was more common at AIIMS (14.7%) than KSCH (1.9%) while G2P[6] which was found in 9% of RV positive samples at KSCH was completely absent at AIIMS. We are currently Sirolimus mouse conducting an extended rotavirus surveillance study at the two hospitals to see whether with time such strains are detected at similar rates in both hospitals. We explored whether the rotavirus strain distribution had changed over time in comparison with our earlier studies during 2000–2007 at AIIMS [6] and [17]. We observed a reduction in prevalence of G1P[8] (19.4% in 2000–2007 to 4.9% in 2007–2012) AZD5363 manufacturer and G2P[4] (14.8% in 2000–2007 to 8.7% in 2007–2012) strains, however continued surveillance is required to determine if this decline persists.

The continued prevalence of G12P[6] with approximately 13% incidence since 2000 at AIIMS signifies its emergence as a dominant strain in Delhi. Studies have reported the G12 RV in relatively large numbers within the Indian subcontinent and other parts of the world: it could emerge as a globally dominant genotype [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and [43]. The major difference between RV strain distribution during the two study periods was detection of a high percentage of non-typeables (either G, or P or both G and P) in the present study (from 12.5% in 2000–2007 to 32.6% in 2007–2012).

High percentages of non-typeables indicate either recent introduction of rare/unusual genotypes in Delhi or failure of genotype specific primers Olopatadine to assign a particular genotype due to nucleotide mismatches in the primer binding region. In our earlier study characterizing non-typeables detected during 2000–2007, we observed consistent multiple-nucleotide mismatches with the type-specific primer due to mutations in G1 and P[8] strains in the primer binding regions [16]. Besides primer mismatches we also detected a G8 rotavirus for the first time in Delhi [16]. Since the percentage of G and P non-typeables in our earlier study was low (nearly 6% each) we continued characterization of rotavirus in this study with the same primer set [17]. It could be that a large proportion of the non-typeables are the common G1 and P[8] genotypes and the numbers of such strains with mutations at the primer binding region may have increased over time. It could also be that the single G8 rotavirus strain detected earlier may have become more common and is currently being missed due to absence of a G8 specific primer in the primer cocktail.