Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1989 Sep;27(9):2107–2109. doi: 10.1128/jcm.27.9.2107-2109.1989

Effect of age of shell vial monolayers on detection of cytomegalovirus from urine specimens.

D P Fedorko 1, D M Ilstrup 1, T F Smith 1
PMCID: PMC267749  PMID: 2550519

Abstract

The effect of age of MRC-5 cell monolayers in shell vials on the detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) from urine was evaluated. When the AD169 strain of CMV was used, 8-day-old monolayers had a higher mean count of fluorescent foci than 15-day-old monolayers did (5.78 versus 2.86) (P less than 0.02) and were more frequently positive (21 of 23 shell vials versus 14 of 22 shell vials) (P less than 0.04). Commercial shell vials used for clinical specimens were evaluated in groups of 8- to 11-, 12- to 15-, and 8- to 15-day-old monolayers. When compared with laboratory-prepared shell vials ranging in age from 3 to 9 days, commercial shell vials had a lower number of fluorescent foci in all groups (P less than 0.03, P less than 0.0001, and P less than 0.0001, respectively), the 12- to 15- and 8- to 15-day-old groups were less frequently positive (P less than or equal to 0.02 and P less than 0.02, respectively), and all three groups were more susceptible to the toxic effects of urine (P less than 0.0001, P less than 0.01, and P less than 0.0001, respectively). For all 191 specimens cultured (8- to 15-day-old group), one or both monolayers were destroyed in 60 (31.4%) specimens compared with 9 (4.7%) specimens toxic to laboratory-prepared shell vials (P less than 0.0001). Both the decreased sensitivity of older MRC-5 cells and the increased sensitivity to the toxic effects of urine made commercial shell vial less sensitive than laboratory-prepared shell vials for the detection of CMV.

Full text

PDF
2107

Selected References

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

  1. DeGirolami P. C., Dakos J., Eichelberger K., Mills L. S., DeLuca A. M. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus in clinical specimens by immunofluorescent staining of shell vial cultures. Am J Clin Pathol. 1988 Apr;89(4):528–532. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/89.4.528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gleaves C. A., Smith T. F., Shuster E. A., Pearson G. R. Comparison of standard tube and shell vial cell culture techniques for the detection of cytomegalovirus in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Feb;21(2):217–221. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.2.217-221.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gleaves C. A., Smith T. F., Shuster E. A., Pearson G. R. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus in MRC-5 cells inoculated with urine specimens by using low-speed centrifugation and monoclonal antibody to an early antigen. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Jun;19(6):917–919. doi: 10.1128/jcm.19.6.917-919.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lamberson H. V., Jr Cytomegalovirus (CMV): the agent, its pathogenesis, and its epidemiology. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1985;182:149–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Paya C. V., Wold A. D., Ilstrup D. M., Smith T. F. Evaluation of number of shell vial cell cultures per clinical specimen for rapid diagnosis of cytomegalovirus infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Feb;26(2):198–200. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.2.198-200.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Shuster E. A., Beneke J. S., Tegtmeier G. E., Pearson G. R., Gleaves C. A., Wold A. D., Smith T. F. Monoclonal antibody for rapid laboratory detection of cytomegalovirus infections: characterization and diagnostic application. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985 Sep;60(9):577–585. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)60979-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Thiele G. M., Bicak M. S., Young A., Kinsey J., White R. J., Purtilo D. T. Rapid detection of cytomegalovirus by tissue culture, centrifugation, and immunofluorescence with a monoclonal antibody to an early nuclear antigen. J Virol Methods. 1987 Jul;16(4):327–338. doi: 10.1016/0166-0934(87)90018-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES