Pepper mild mottle virus, a plant virus associated with specific immune responses, Fever, abdominal pains, and pruritus in humans
Authors: Philippe Berbis
Fanny Balique
Jean-Jacques Grob
Philippe Colson
Hervé Richet
Hervé Lecoq
Yvon Berland
Didier Raoult
Valérie Moal
Jean-Robert Harlé
Christelle Desnues
Journal: PLoS ONE (2010)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: metagenomic studies; Pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV); stool samples; real-time PCR; sequencing
Affiliations: Unité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes (URMITE), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 6236-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) 3R198, Facultés de Médecine et de Pharmacie, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.

Abstract:  Background: Recently, metagenomic studies have identified viable Pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV), a plant virus, in the stool of healthy subjects. However, its source and role as pathogen have not been determined. Methods and findings: 21 commercialized food products containing peppers, 357 stool samples from 304 adults and 208 stool samples from 137 children were tested for PMMoV using real-time PCR, sequencing, and electron microscopy. Anti-PMMoV IgM antibody testing was concurrently performed. A case-control study tested the association of biological and clinical symptoms with the presence of PMMoV in the stool. Twelve (57%) food products were positive for PMMoV RNA sequencing. Stool samples from twenty-two (7.2%) adults and one child (0.7%) were positive for PMMoV by real-time PCR. Positive cases were significantly more likely to have been sampled in Dermatology Units (p&lt;10(-6)), to be seropositive for anti-PMMoV IgM antibodies (p = 0.026) and to be patients who exhibited fever, abdominal pains, and pruritus (p = 0.045, 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). Conclusions: Our study identified a local source of PMMoV and linked the presence of PMMoV RNA in stool with a specific immune response and clinical symptoms. Although clinical symptoms may be imputable to another cofactor, including spicy food, our data suggest the possibility of a direct or indirect pathogenic role of plant viruses in humans. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figure 2. * Red boxes. The leaves shown in a (uninfected control) and b (buffer control) appear to look quite similar. The veins run at the same positions, and the shape of the leaves is also similar. Some details between the veins are a bit different, and look almost like airbrushed in leaf b. Are leaves supposed to look this similar? ![file] , 
 Those are completely different leaves. Dr. Bik is clutching at straws. , 
 Please compare the base of each leaf. They are clearly different leaves. And yes, it is quite common for leaves to look similar. , 
 #3 * And yes, it is quite common for leaves to look similar. * Oh no it isn t! , 
 ![file] look more than similar , 
 #5 Even the depression at the bottom right of the leaves. , 
 Yes indeed, leaves shown in our figures 2a and 2b are clearly the same leaf. We are very sorry for this error in the setting of this figure. Photo 2a was probably mislabelled (u2018non inoculatedu2019 instead of u2018inoculated with buffer onlyu2019) after taking the pictureu00a0by one of us; a careful observation of figure 2a reveals signs of abrasion indicative that this leaf was indeed u2018inoculated with the bufferu2019. These photos were taken with different lights and angles and this is probably the reason why we did not notice this error when we prepared the plate setting. Unfortunately, we have not kept other photos of these experiments and we canu2019t make a revised version of the plate to propose as an erratum to PLos ONE. However, the reader can refer to figure 2e, as an alternative negative control u2018non inoculatedu2019 and fortunately our error doesnu2019t affect the overall validity of the results shown in figure 2. Hervu00e9 Lecoq Directeur de Recherches INRA (retired) , 
 Thank you for this (unlabeled but signed) author s comment. The situation is overall unfortunate but indeed, since the control was duplicated in the figure setting (2a, 2e) and 2e does not appear to have suffered the same mistake, 2e does indeed provide the reader with a suitable non-inoculated control. It can also be noticed that altogether, a non-inoculated control has little added value in this experimental setup compared to the mock-inoculated control (rubbed with buffer only, i.e. not stuffed with a potentially infectious component), which is actually the most relevant one. ,