Whetstone C A
Intervirology. 1985;23(2):116-20. doi: 10.1159/000149594.
Four strains of canine adenovirus type 1 (CAV-1) and two strains of canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2) were examined by restriction enzyme analysis. In all cases, CAV-1 could be readily differentiated from CAV-2. Additionally, monoclonal antibodies were prepared against the Mirandola and Manhattan strains of CAV-1 and CAV-2, respectively. 18 of 36 monoclonal antibodies from the CAV-1 fusion and 77 of 160 monoclonal antibodies from the CAV-2 fusion were type-specific by an indirect fluorescent-antibody technique. Moreover, among those type-specific monoclonal antibodies, 13 of the 18 CAV-1 antibodies and 39 of the 77 CAV-2 antibodies specifically neutralized only the homologous virus in vitro. These data, along with other evidence from the literature, suggest that not only should CAV-1 and CAV-2 be recognized as distinct species in the genus mastadenovirus of the family Adenoviridae, but also that the major criterion of species distinction in that family, namely neutralization, should be reconsidered.
通过限制性酶切分析对4株犬腺病毒1型（CAV-1）和2株犬腺病毒2型（CAV-2）进行了检测。在所有情况下，CAV-1都能很容易地与CAV-2区分开来。此外，分别制备了针对CAV-1的米兰多拉株和曼哈顿株以及CAV-2的单克隆抗体。通过间接荧光抗体技术，CAV-1融合产生的36株单克隆抗体中有18株、CAV-2融合产生的160株单克隆抗体中有77株具有型特异性。此外，在那些型特异性单克隆抗体中，18株CAV-1抗体中的13株和77株CAV-2抗体中的39株在体外仅能特异性中和同源病毒。这些数据，连同文献中的其他证据表明，不仅CAV-1和CAV-2应被视为腺病毒科mastadenovirus属中的不同种，而且该科中物种区分的主要标准，即中和作用，也应重新考虑。
