Abstract
Aims—To compare prospectively the efficacy of the Vero, LLC-MK2, MDCK, Hep-2, and MRC-5 cell lines in the isolation of the mumps virus from clinical samples by means of the shell vial method.
Methods—During an epidemic outbreak of parotiditis 48 clinical samples (saliva swabs and CSF) were studied. Two vials of the Vero, LLC-MK2, MDCK, MRC-5, and Hep-2 cell lines were inoculated with 0.2 ml of the samples by the shell vial assay. The vials were incubated at 36°C for two and five days. The vials were then fixed with acetone at -20°C for 10 minutes and stained by a monoclonal antibody against mumps virus by means of an indirect immunofluorescence assay.
Results—The mumps virus was isolated from 36 samples. The Vero and LLC-MK2 cell lines showed a 100% isolation capacity, MDCK showed 77.7%, MRC-5 showed 44.4%, and Hep-2 showed 22.2%. The Vero and LLC-MK2 lines were significantly different to the other cell lines (p < 0.001). The sensitivity for the Vero and LLC-MK2 lines at two and five days of incubation was identical (100%). The values obtained in the study of the quantitative isolation capacity (positive isolation with > 5 infectious foci) were 94.4% for Vero, 97.2% for LLC-MK2, 5.5% for MDCK, 5.5% for Hep-2, and 0% for MRC-5.
Conclusions—The Vero and LLC-MK2 cell lines are equally efficient at two and five days incubation for the isolation of the mumps virus from clinical samples, and the use of the shell vial method considerably shortens the time of aetiological diagnosis with higher specificity.
Key Words: mumps virus • Vero cell line • LLC-MK2 cell line • MDCK cell line • Hep-2 cell line • MRC-5 cell line • isolation • shell vial
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (139.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Briss P. A., Fehrs L. J., Parker R. A., Wright P. F., Sannella E. C., Hutcheson R. H., Schaffner W. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):77–82. doi: 10.1093/infdis/169.1.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Germann D., Gorgievski M., Ströhle A., Matter L. Detection of mumps virus in clinical specimens by rapid centrifugation culture and conventional tube cell culture. J Virol Methods. 1998 Jul;73(1):59–64. doi: 10.1016/s0166-0934(98)00038-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meurman O., Hänninen P., Krishna R. V., Ziegler T. Determination of IgG- and IgM-class antibodies to mumps virus by solid-phase enzyme immunoassay. J Virol Methods. 1982 May;4(4-5):249–256. doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(82)90071-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Person D. A., Smith T. F., Herrmann E. C., Jr Experiences in laboratory diagnosis of mumps virus infections in routine medical practice. Mayo Clin Proc. 1971 Aug;46(8):544–548. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- UTZ J. P., KASEL J. A., CRAMBLETT H. G., SZWED C. F., PARROTT R. H. Clinical and laboratory studies of mumps. I. Laboratory diagnosis by tissue-culture technics. N Engl J Med. 1957 Sep 12;257(11):497–502. doi: 10.1056/NEJM195709122571103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]