Skip to main content
PMC home page
Bulletin of the World Health Organization logoLink to Bulletin of the World Health Organization
. 1970;43(2):295–300.

A comparison of two cell culture systems for the primary isolation of enteric viruses

D A McSwiggan, Rae George
PMCID: PMC2427634  PMID: 4320959

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.

Full text

PDF
295

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Doane F. W., Anderson N., Zbitnew A., Rhodes A. J. Application of electron microscopy to the diagnosis of virus infections. Can Med Assoc J. 1969 Jun 14;100(22):1043–1049. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. GELFAND H. M. The occurrence in nature of the Coxsackie and ECHO viruses. Prog Med Virol. 1961;3:193–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. HAMBLING M. H., DAVIS P. M. SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE LLC-MK2 LINE OF MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS TO HUMAN ENTEROVIRUSES. J Hyg (Lond) 1965 Jun;63:169–174. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400045071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hambling M. H., O'Neill J. J. A comparison of various tissue cultures for the rapid isolation of viruses. Mon Bull Minist Health Public Health Lab Serv. 1967 Dec;26:266–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. KELLY S., SANDERSON W. W. Comparison of various tissue cultures for the isolation enteroviruses. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1962 Mar;52:455–459. doi: 10.2105/ajph.52.3.455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lee L. H., Phillips C. A., South M. A., Melnick J. L., Yow M. D. Enteric virus isolation in different cell cultures. Bull World Health Organ. 1965;32(5):657–663. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. PAL S. R., MCQUILLIN J., GARDNER P. S. 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 Dec;61:493–498. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400021112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. SCHMIDT N. J., DENNIS J., LENNETTE E. H., HO H. H., SHINOMOTO T. 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 Jul;95:54–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. SUTO T., KARZON D. T., BUSSELL R. H., BARRON A. L. STUDIES OF MUTANTS OF ECHOVIRUS 6. II. ISOLATION FROM HUMAN ALIMENTARY TRACT. Am J Epidemiol. 1965 May;81:333–340. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. SUTO T., KARZON D. T., BUSSELL R. H. STUDIES OF MUTANTS OF ECHOVIRUS 6. 3. BEHAVIOR IN MONKEY AND HUMAN CELL CULTURE. Am J Epidemiol. 1965 May;81:341–349. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schmidt N. J., Dennis J., Lennette E. H. 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 May;98(5):1060–1066. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sohier R., Chardonnet Y., Prunieras M. Adenoviruses. Status of current knowledge. Prog Med Virol. 1965;7:253–325. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. TYRRELL D. A., PARSONS R. Some virus isolations from common colds. III. Cytopathic effects in tissue cultures. Lancet. 1960 Jan 30;1(7118):239–242. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(60)90168-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the World Health Organization are provided here courtesy of World Health Organization

RESOURCES