Early Release

Correction

Correction to: Evaluation of Biofilm Formation and Antibacterial Susceptibility in Klebsiella and Acinetobacter Strains Isolated from Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

İlkay Nur Can and Others

Correction

Correction to: Management of Chronic Hepatitis B Infection: A Consensus Report of the Study Group for Viral Hepatitis of the Turkish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases-2023 Update

Neşe Demirtürk and Others

Early Release / Consensus Report

Use of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Plus Rapid Syndromic Multiplex PCR Assay in Pneumonia Patients – An Expert Opinion Report

Elif Demirören-Çayırcı and Others

Most Read

  1. Pneumococcal Vaccine as One of the Immunization Coverage Targets for Adulthood Vaccines: A Consensus Report of the Study Group for Adult Immunization of the Turkish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
  2. Does Hepatitis B Affect Erectile Dysfunction and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms?
  3. HIV Infection in Turkey: How Close Are We to the Target?
  4. Evaluation of HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Who Had Undergone Liver Biopsy in Accordance With the Guidelines
  5. When to Stop Antiviral Therapy in Chronic Hepatitis B
  6. Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention of Diabetic Foot Wounds and Infections: Turkish Consensus Report
  7. Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever: Treatment and Use of Ribavirin

Volume 38, Issue 3

Original Article

Hantavirus Antibody Frequency: Urban and Rural Population Comparison

Seda Nur Arazi-Kan
Affiliations
  • Afyonkarahisar Devlet Hastanesi, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Kliniği, Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0282-2099
,
Bahadır Feyzioğlu
Affiliations
  • Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Konya, Türkiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0991-2132
  • ELİSA
  • Hantavirus
  • rural population
  • serology
  • urban population

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the frequency of hantavirus immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies in individuals living in Konya province by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and to compare antibody positivity between urban and rural populations.

Method: Serum samples from 136 urban and 137 rural residents of Konya (a total of 273) were tested for hantavirus IgG antibodies using ELISA.

Result: Of the participants, 136 (49.8%) were female and 137 (50.2%) were male. The age range was 2–92 years, with a median of 57 years. Hantavirus IgG antibodies were detected in 13 (4.8%) of the samples. Antibody positivity showed no statistically significant association with age, sex, or place of residence (urban/rural).

Conclusion: Hantaviruses are globally distributed infectious agents that can cause severe and potentially fatal diseases. A similar outbreak occurred in Türkiye in 2009, followed by sporadic case reports from various regions. However, no cases have previously been reported from Konya province. In this context, the 4.8% hantavirus IgG antibody seropositivity rate identified in our study is noteworthy, as it highlights the presence of prior exposure in the region. This finding informs regional epidemiology and public health efforts.

Show References

References

  1. Taxon details: History of the taxon [Internet]. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). [erişim 19 Mart 2025]. https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202400020&taxon_name=Orthohantavirus
  2. Muyangwa M, Martynova EV, Khaiboullina SF, Morzunov SP, Rizvanov AA. Hantaviral proteins: Structure, functions, and role in hantavirus infection. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1326. [CrossRef] 
  3. Avšič-Županc T, Saksida A, Korva M. Hantavirus infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;21S:e6-e16. [CrossRef]
  4. Yao L, Kang Z, Liu Y, et al. Seoul virus in rats (Rattus norvegicus), Hyesan, North Korea, 2009-2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(11):1895-6. [CrossRef]
  5. Brocato RL, Hooper JW. Progress on the prevention and treatment of hantavirus disease. Viruses. 2019;11(7):610. [CrossRef]
  6. Kostakoğlu U. Hantavirüs infeksiyonlarının kliniği. In: Hantavirüs Sempozyumu (29 Mart 2010, Ankara) Bildiri Kitabı. Ankara: Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi; 2010. s. 59-62.
  7. Jonsson CB, Figueiredo LT, Vapalahti O. A global perspective on hantavirus ecology, epidemiology, and disease. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23(2):412-41. [CrossRef]
  8. Martinez VP, Padula PJ. Induction of protective immunity in a Syrian hamster model against a cytopathogenic strain of Andes virus. J Med Virol. 2012;84(1):87-95. [CrossRef] 
  9. Çelebi G. [Hantavirus infections]. Klimik Derg. 2011;24:139-49. Turkish. [CrossRef] 
  10. Bi Z, Formenty PB, Roth CE. Hantavirus infection: a review and global update. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2008;2(1):3-23. [CrossRef]
  11. Koehler FC, Di Cristanziano V, Späth MR, et al. The kidney in hantavirus infection-epidemiology, virology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15(7):1231-52. [CrossRef]
  12. Çelebi G, Pişkin N, Öktem MA, İrkörücü O, Külekçi Uğur A, Öztoprak N, Ertek M, Gözalan A, Korukluoğlu G, Türkyılmaz B, Yılmaz Ö, Bodur H, Baruönü F, Ayma Y, Demir F, Külah E, Dursak A, Tekin Ş, Aköz A. Bir salgının anatomisi. In: 14. Türk Mikrobiyoloji ve İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları Kongresi (25-29 Mart 2009, Antalya) Bildiri Kitabı. İstanbul: Türk Klinik Mikrobiyoloji ve İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları Derneği; 2009. s. 163.
  13. Ertek M, Buzgan T; Refik Saydam National Public Health Agency; Ministry of Health, Ankara, Turkey. An outbreak caused by Hantavirus in the Black Sea region of Turkey, January-May 2009. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(20):19214. [CrossRef] 
  14. Çelebi G. Hantavirus enfeksiyonları. Klinik Gelişim Derg. 2010;23(3):40-4.
  15. Kavukçu S, Türkmen M, Salman Ş, Soylu A, Çamsan T. [What is the risk of nephropathy associated with Hantavirus in Aegean Region]. Turk Nephrol Dial Transpl. 1997;3-4:131-5. Turkish. 
  16. Öktem MA. [Hantavirus and tick-borne encephalitis infections]. Ankem Derg. 2009;23(Ek 2):245-8. Turkish.
  17. Gozalan A, Kalaycioglu H, Uyar Y, et al. Human puumala and Dobrava hantavirus infections in the Black Sea region of Turkey: a cross-sectional study. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13(2):111-8. [CrossRef]
  18. Kaya S, Yılmaz G, Erensoy S, Yağçı Çağlayık D, Uyar Y, Köksal I. [Hantavirus infection: two case reports from a province in the Eastern Black Sea Region, Turkey]. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2010;44(3):479-87. Turkish.
  19. Özkan O, Gürsu M, Öztürk S, Tükek T, Yıldız E, Velioğlu Atöztürk E. [Hantavirus infections and renal manifestations: Case report and update]. Turk Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2013;22(1):129-32. Turkish. [CrossRef]
  20. Çetin S, Şahin AM. [A case of hantavirus infection detected during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Klimik Derg. 2021;34(2):141-3. Turkish. [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang YZ, Zou Y, Fu ZF, Plyusnin A. Hantavirus infections in humans and animals, China. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(8):1195-203. [CrossRef] 
  22. Cesur S, Ünverdi S, Çiftçi A, et al. [The Seroprevalence of hantavirus in patients with chronic renal failure in two provinces of Central Anatolia]. Klimik Dergisi. 2012;25(3):103-6. Turkish. 
  23. Ulu-Kılıç A, Yağcı DÇ, Dede G, Tütüncü E, Uyar Y, Şencan İ. [A hantavirus infection case report from rural area of Kazan district, Ankara]. Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg. 2013;70(1):27-32. Turkish.
  24. Oncul O, Atalay Y, Onem Y, et al. Hantavirus infection in Istanbul, Turkey. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(2):303-4. [CrossRef] 
  25. Ahlm C, Linderholm M, Juto P, Stegmayr B, Settergren B. Prevalence of serum IgG antibodies to Puumala virus (haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome) in northern Sweden. Epidemiol Infect. 1994;113(1):129-36. [CrossRef]
  26. Quelapio ID, Villa L, Clarin SM, Bacosa M, Tupasi TE. Seroepidemiology of hantavirus in the Philippines. Int J Infect Dis. 2000;4(2):104-7. [CrossRef]
  27. Makary P, Kanerva M, Ollgren J, Virtanen MJ, Vapalahti O, Lyytikäinen O. Disease burden of Puumala virus infections, 1995-2008. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138(10):1484-92. [CrossRef]
  28. Vial PA, Ferrés M, Vial C, et al. Hantavirus in humans: a review of clinical aspects and management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023;23(9):e371-e82. [CrossRef]
  29. Gimaque JB, Bastos Mde S, Braga WS, et al. Serological evidence of hantavirus infection in rural and urban regions in the state of Amazonas, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012;107(1):135-7. [CrossRef]
  30. Abu Sin M, Stark K, van Treeck U, et al. Risk factors for hantavirus infection in Germany, 2005. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(9):1364-6. [CrossRef]
  31. Vieira CJ, Silva DJ, Barreto ES, et al. Serological evidence of hantavirus infection in an urban area in Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2016;49(3):348-50. [CrossRef]
  32. Çelebi G, Öztoprak N, Öktem İMA, et al. Dynamics of Puumala hantavirus outbreak in Black Sea Region, Turkey. Zoonoses Public Health. 2019;66(7):783-97. [CrossRef]
  • 158-61
  • Seda Nur Arazi-Kan
  • [email protected]
  • 10.36519/ kd.2025.5258
  • March 24, 2025
  • August 13, 2025
  • September 27, 2025

  • Arazi-Kan SN, Feyzioğlu B. [Hantavirus antibody frequency: Urban and rural population comparison]. Klimik Derg. 2025;38(3):158-61. Turkish.
  • 332
  • 87
Download as PDF
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. CC BY-NC
Volume 38, Issue 3 Volume 38, Issue 2 Volume 38, Issue 1 Volume 37, Issue 4 Volume 37, Issue 3 Volume 37, Issue 2 Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1