A Comparison of Two Cell Culture Systems for the Primary Isolation of Enteric Viruses

Overview

Journal Bull World Health Organ

Specialty Public Health

Date 1970 Jan 1

PMID 4320959

Citations 4

Authors

D A McSwiggan

R George

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Several studies have been reported on the comparative susceptibility of various cell cultures for the primary isolation of enteric viruses. The present report gives a comparison of human embryo kidney cells and rhesus monkey kidney cells for the primary isolation of viruses from faecal specimens. Altogether, 148 enteroviruses, covering 21 serotypes, and 20 adenoviruses were isolated. The marked sensitivity of human embryo kidney cells to adenoviruses was again demonstrated. These cells, however, were found to be significantly less sensitive than rhesus monkey cells for the isolation of the enteroviruses encountered. This finding is in conflict with the results of a previous study and is partly explained by the difference in enterovirus composition of the two series. The value of human embryo kidney cells for the primary isolation of enteric viruses would seem to be closely related to the prevalence of adenoviruses and certain coxsackievirus A serotypes in the population studied.

Citing Articles

Increased Efficiency of Group B Coxsackievirus Isolation from Clinical Specimens by Use of BGM Cells.

Menegus M, Hollick G J Clin Microbiol. 1982; 15(5):945-8.

PMID: 16789270 PMC: 272218. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.15.5.945-948.1982.

Induction of cytopathogenicity in mammalian cell lines challenged with culturable enteric viruses and its enhancement by 5-iododeoxyuridine.

Benton W, Ward R Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982; 43(4):861-8.

PMID: 6282217 PMC: 241933. DOI: 10.1128/aem.43.4.861-868.1982.

Carrier cultures of human fetal diploid cells infected with coxsackievirus type B2.

Maverakis N, SCHMIDT N, Riggs J, LENNETTE E Arch Gesamte Virusforsch. 1973; 43(4):289-96.

PMID: 4207284 DOI: 10.1007/BF01556144.

Evaluation of three types of cell culture for recovery of adenovirus from clinical specimens.

Krisher K, Menegus M J Clin Microbiol. 1987; 25(7):1323-4.

PMID: 3038951 PMC: 269206. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.25.7.1323-1324.1987.

References

SOHIER R, Chardonnet Y, Prunieras M . Adenoviruses. Status of current knowledge. Prog Med Virol. 1965; 7:253-325. View

Lee L, Phillips C, South M, Melnick J, YOW M . Enteric virus isolation in different cell cultures. Bull World Health Organ. 1965; 32(5):657-63. PMC: 2555248. View

SCHMIDT N, Dennis J, LENNETTE E . Antibody responses of rhesus (Macaca mulatta) monkeys experimentally infected with coxsackieviruses of group B and group A, type 9. II. Heterotypic antibody responses to echoviruses, polioviruses and reovirus type 1. J Immunol. 1967; 98(5):1060-6. View

HAMBLING M, ONeill J . A comparison of various tissue cultures for the rapid isolation of viruses. Mon Bull Minist Health Public Health Lab Serv. 1967; 26:266-73. View

Doane F, Anderson N, Zbitnew A, Rhodes A . Application of electron microscopy to the diagnosis of virus infections. Can Med Assoc J. 1969; 100(22):1043-9. PMC: 1946018. View

Gelfand H . The occurrence in nature of the Coxsackie and ECHO viruses. Prog Med Virol. 1961; 3:193-244. View

Kelly S, SANDERSON W . Comparison of various tissue cultures for the isolation enteroviruses. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1962; 52:455-9. PMC: 1522732. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.52.3.455. View

Pal S, MCQUILLIN J, Gardner P . A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUSCEPTIBILITY OF PRIMARY MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS, HEP 2 CELLS AND HELA CELLS TO A VARIETY OF FAECAL VIRUSES. J Hyg (Lond). 1963; 61:493-8. PMC: 2134556. DOI: 10.1017/s0022172400021112. View

Suto T, Karzon D, BUSSELL R . STUDIES OF MUTANTS OF ECHOVIRUS 6. 3. BEHAVIOR IN MONKEY AND HUMAN CELL CULTURE. Am J Epidemiol. 1965; 81:341-9. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120520. View

10.

Suto T, Karzon D, BUSSELL R, Barron A . STUDIES OF MUTANTS OF ECHOVIRUS 6. II. ISOLATION FROM HUMAN ALIMENTARY TRACT. Am J Epidemiol. 1965; 81:333-40. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120519. View

11.

SCHMIDT N, Dennis J, LENNETTE E, Ho H, SHINOMOTO T . ANTIBODY RESPONSES OF RHESUS (MACACA MULATTA) MONKEYS EXPERIMENTALLY INFECTED WITH COXSACKIEVIRUSES OF GROUP B AND GROUP A, TYPE 9. I. ANTIBODY RESPONSES WITH THE COXSACKIEVIRUS GROUP. J Immunol. 1965; 95:54-69. View

12.

Tyrrell D, Parsons R . Some virus isolations from common colds. III. Cytopathic effects in tissue cultures. Lancet. 1960; 1(7118):239-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(60)90168-9. View

13.

HAMBLING M, Davis P . SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE LLC-MK2 LINE OF MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS TO HUMAN ENTEROVIRUSES. J Hyg (Lond). 1965; 63:169-74. PMC: 2134639. DOI: 10.1017/s0022172400045071. View