Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255314

Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

Worawat Dangsagul 1, Kriengsak Ruchusatsawat 2, Apiwat Tawatsin 2, Don Changsom 2, Pirom Noisumdaeng 3,4, Sukontip Putchakarn 2, Chayawat Phatihattakorn 5, Prasert Auewarakul 5, Pilaipan Puthavathana 1,*
Editor: Juan Carlos de la Torre6
PMCID: PMC8323943  PMID: 34329309

Abstract

Zika virus (ZIKV) was isolated from the archival urine, serum, and autopsy specimens by intrathoracic inoculation of Toxorhynchitis splendens and followed by three blind sub-passaging in C6/36 mosquito cells. The virus isolates were identified using an immunofluorescence assay and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR). This study analyzed 11 ZIKV isolates. One isolate (0.6%) was obtained from 171 urine samples, eight (8.7%) from 92 serum samples and two from tissues of an abortive fetus. After propagation in C6/36 cells, ZIKV was titrated by plaque and focus forming unit (FFU) assays in Vero cell monolayers, and viral genomes were determined via real-time and digital RT-PCR. Plaque and FFU assay quantitations were comparable, with the amount of infectious viruses averaging 106−107 PFU or FFU/ml. Real-time RT-PCR semi-quantified the viral genome numbers, with Ct values varying from 12 to 14. Digital RT-PCR, which precisely determines the numbers of the viral genomes, consistently averaged 10–100 times higher than the number of infectious units. There was good correlation between the results of these titration methods. Therefore, the selection of a method should be based on the objectives of each research studies.

Introduction

Zika virus (ZIKV) was first isolated from a captive rhesus monkey on a canopy in Uganda during surveillance for Yellow fever in 1947 [1]. Subsequently, Zika fever was found in three human cases in Nigeria [2]. The first documented outbreak of Zika fever was in 2007 on the Western Pacific island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia [3]. This was followed by an epidemic in French Polynesia in the South Pacific in 2013 and 2014, which had an unusual number of cases complicated with Guillain-Barre syndrome [4]. In March 2015, ZIKV emerged in Brazil and included the highest incidence of congenital microcephaly ever reported [5].

ZIKV is a risk group 2 agent. Therefore, study of this infectious virus can be conducted in a biosafety laboratory level 2. It is fastidious and difficult to isolate, with rates lower than other emerging viruses [6]. The first ZIKV isolate was, unintentionally, discovered by intracerebral inoculation of suckling mice with a serum specimen from a sentinel rhesus monkey and identified by a neutralization test [1]. Later, several attempts were made to isolate the ZIKV in multiple host systems, including those described for flaviviruses, e.g., the Aedes albopictus and Toxorhynchytes splendens mosquitoes. Subsequently the C6/36 cell line derived from Ae. albopictus, and the Vero cell line (ATCC CCL-81) derived from African green monkey kidney were also assessed [710]. The success rates of ZIKV isolation in different cell lines are not significantly different [7].

Viral quantification is fundamental to establishing a standard protocol which makes the results from multiple laboratories comparable. The numbers of viruses in a preparation can be determined by approaches which may vary depending on the objectives of the experiment or study. Molecular techniques, such as real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), yield the cycle threshold (Ct) which is a rough estimate of the number of the viral genomes in a virus preparation [11]. At present, several advanced molecular techniques can enumerate the copy numbers of the viral genomes with high precision, such as quantitative real-time PCR [12] and digital droplet PCR [13]. Even though these molecular techniques are highly sensitive, they cannot differentiate between the genomes derived from infectious and dead viruses. In this report we share our experience on the isolation of ZIKV using Tx. splendens mosquitoes in adjunction with C6/36 cells. The ZIKV isolates were quantified for infectious viruses by plaque assay and FFU assay, and for viral genomes by real-time RT-PCR and digital droplet RT-PCR.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Research use of human samples received approval from the Mahidol University Central Institutional Review Board (MU-CIRB): protocol number MU-CIRB 2017/180.1210. Anonymized archival serum and urine samples for ZIKV isolation were kindly provided by the Regional Medical Sciences Centers and the National Institute of Health (NIH), Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health. They were the leftover specimens after laboratory diagnostic testing for ZIKV infection between 2016 and 2018. The archival autopsy tissues from an abortive fetus with congenital microcephaly in 2016 were obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University. The IRB waived the requirement for informed consent for this study.

Use of mosquitoes in the experiments was approved by the Mahidol University-Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (number MUVS-2018-01-01).

ZIKV isolation in mosquitoes

A colony of Tx. splendens maintained at the Medical Insect Unit, NIH was used in this study. Mosquito larvae were fed with Aedes mosquito larvae, and the adults were fed with 5% sugar syrup supplemented with 10% multi-vitamins. Each of a group of 10 mosquitoes of age 5–10 days, was inoculated intrathoracically with approximately 0.3 μl of a clinical specimen, and a group of 5 un-inoculated mosquitoes was kept as the negative control in every mosquito inoculation experiment. The inoculated mosquitoes were kept for 10 days before harvesting. Pool of 10 mosquitoes was ground and suspended in L-15 media (Gibco, MA) supplemented with 10% FBS (Gibco). Mosquito suspensions were centrifuged at 5,000 rpm for 30 minutes at 4°C, then filtered with a 0.4 μm filtered membrane, and subjected to the viral genome detection by real-time RT-PCR targeting the NS2B region of the ZIKV genomes.

ZIKV propagation in C6/36 cells

The C6/36 cell line (ATCC CRL-1660) is derived from Ae. albopictus mosquitoes and grown in Leibovitz’s-15 (L-15) medium (Life Technologies, NY) supplement with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Life Technologies), 10% tryptose phosphate broth, and antibiotics at 28°C in the absence of CO2. A mosquito suspension positive for ZIKV genomes was inoculated onto the C6/36 cell monolayers and maintained in medium supplemented with 5% FBS. Viral propagation was carried out through three blinded passages; each passage took about 10 days. At the end of each passage, the cell monolayer was scraped off of the plastic surface and tested for the flaviviral antigen by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using the 4G2 monoclonal antibody specific to flavivirus E antigen. In parallel, ZIKV in the culture supernatants were identified by real-time RT-PCR. The ZIKV isolates were propagated in C6/36 cells; culture supernatants were spun, aliquot and kept as the virus stocks at -70°C until used.

Real time RT-PCR

Total RNA was extracted from virus suspensions using the Qiagen Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qian, Hilden, Germany). A reaction of 25 μl volume was set up comprising 5 μl of RNA extract, 12.5 μl of 2X reaction buffer (Superscript® III one-step RT-PCR system with Platinum® Taq polymerase) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Darmstadt, Germany, 0.5 μl of primers and probes, 1 μl of SuperScript® III/Platinum® Taq Mix and 5 μl of deionized distilled water. The primers and probe targeting the NS2B region of the ZIKV genome were designed by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) [14], with the Zika 4481 forward primer sequence: 5’-CTGTGGCATGAACCCAATAG-3’; and the Zika 4552c reverse primer sequence: 5’-ATCCCATAGAGCACCACTCC-3’; and the Zika 4507c probe sequence: 5’- CCACGCTCCAGCTGCAAAGG-3’. Reaction cycles started with a reverse transcription step at 50°C for 30 minutes, followed by a step of inactivation of reverse transcriptase and activation of DNA polymerase at 95°C for 10 minutes, and 45 cycles of amplification comprised of DNA denaturation for 15 seconds at 95°C, and the DNA annealing and extension for 1 minute at 55°C.

Virus titration

In general, virus quantitation can be accomplished by many means, depending on the purpose of its further use. Herein, the ZIKV stock was titrated for the numbers of infectious viruses by plaque assay and the focus-forming unit (FFU) assay in Vero cell monolayers. The numbers of the viral genomes were quantitated by real-time RT-PCR and droplet digital RT-PCR.

Plaque assay

Vero cells (ATCC CCL-81) derived from an African green monkey kidney were grown in Eagle’s minimum essential medium (EMEM) (Gibco, MA) supplement with 10% FBS and maintained in media supplemented with 2% FBS at 37°C in a CO2 incubator. The ZIKV stock was 10 fold-serially diluted, and each dilution was inoculated onto the Vero cell monolayers in 12-well culture plates in triplicate. Virus inoculums were allowed to absorb onto the cell surface for 2 hours at 37°C before discarding. The culture plates were overlaid with a semisolid media containing 1X MEM, 2% FBS, and 1.5% carboxymethyl cellulose and further incubated for 7 days. The culture plates were then fixed with 3% formaldehyde for 1 hour before discarding the overlay media. Plates were washed with water and stained with 1% crystal violet for 15 minutes, then washed again. Plaques (foci of infected cells) were counted, and viral titers were calculated and expressed in terms of the plaque-forming unit (PFU)/ml. Plaque sizes were measured by digital Vernier caliper.

Focus forming unit assay

The ZIKV stock was 10-fold serially diluted, and each dilution was inoculated onto Vero cell monolayers in 96-well culture plates in triplicate. Virus inoculums were allowed to absorb onto the cell monolayers for 2 hours at 37°C before discarding. The culture plates were overlaid with a semisolid media containing 1X MEM, 2% FBS, and 1.5% carboxymethyl cellulose. Three days-post-infection; the culture plates were fixed with 3% formaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100. The plates were then stained with a 4G2 monoclonal antibody followed by a goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (Southern Biotech, Atlanta, GA). The chromogenic substrate 3, 3’-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride was added, producing dark brown foci in antigen-positive cells. Due to the tiny sizes of these foci of infected cells, we photographed each well of the reaction plates and magnified the wells using Icy software to facilitate the counting of foci [15]. Two scientists independently performed the counting. The viral titers were presented as foci forming units (FFUs)/ml.

Droplet digital RT-PCR

Total RNA extracted from the culture supernatants was analyzed for the number of ZIKV genomes by the droplet digital real-time RT-PCR using One-Step RT-ddPCR Advanced Kit for Probes (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). The reaction employed the same primers and probe targeting the NS2B region that was used for the real-time RT-PCR. A reaction volume of 22 μl consisted of 5.5 μl of the RNA extract and 16.5 μl of the master mix containing 1X Supermix, 20 U/μl reverse transcriptase, 15 mM DTT, 500 nM forward primer, 900 nM reverse primer, and 200 nM probe. A 20 μl volume of the reaction mixture was transferred to DG8™ cartridges (Bio-Rad) and 70 μl of Droplet Generation Oil for Probes (Bio-Rad) was added. Droplets were generated with a QX200™ Droplet Generator (Bio-Rad), and a 40 μl volume of the droplet suspension was processed with the QX200™ Droplet Digital™ PCR system (Bio-Rad) in a T100™ Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad).

The thermal cycling conditions were comprised of these steps: reverse transcription at 50°C for 60 minutes; inactivation of reverse transcriptase and activation of DNA polymerase at 95°C for 10 minutes; DNA amplification reaction which employed 50 cycles of DNA denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, DNA annealing and elongation at 55°C for 60 seconds; DNA polymerase inactivation at 98°C for 10 minutes. According to the manufacturer, a maximum of 20,000 oil droplets are generated in a reaction, and each droplet can accommodate only one RNA target for an amplification reaction. The amplified DNA products were detected and enumerated by the Bio-Rad QX200 Droplet Reader and QuantaSoft™ software version 1.7.4 (Bio-Rad), respectively. The threshold to separate the clusters of droplets containing the target RNA amplification from that of the non-template negative control was set manually across the entire reaction plate.

Genomic characteristics of the ZIKV isolates

Complete genome sequencing by the Sanger method showed that all 11 ZIKV isolates belonged to the Asian lineage. These sequences can be retrieved from the GenBank database using the accession numbers shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Plaque size of Zika virus isolates in 1.5% CMC.
Virus name Passage history Specimen type Plaque sizes (mm.) (X¯, sd, min-max) Accession No.
MUMT-1/2016 TS-1, C6/36-4 Brain stem 3.49, 0.55, 2.37–4.40 MT377492
MU-DMSC-2/2016 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 1.13, 0.24, 0.44–1.94 MT377496
MU-DMSC-3/2016 TS-1, C6/36-3 Urine 1.24, 0.24, 0.48–1.64 MT377497
MU-DMSC-4/2016 TS-1, C6/36-4 Serum 2.18, 0.59, 1.45–3.37 MT377498
MU-DMSC-5/2016 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 1.59, 0.54, 0.90–3.18 MT377499
MU-DMSC-6/2016 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 0.79, 0.58, 0.17–2.24 MT377500
MU-DMSC-1/2017 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 1.79, 0.66, 0.90–3.90 MT377491
MU-DMSC-2/2017 TS-1, C6/36-4 Serum 1.25, 0.47, 0.16–2.02 MT377493
MU-DMSC-3/2017 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 1.34, 0.41, 0.44–1.94 MT377494
MU-DMSC-4/2017 TS-1, C6/36-4 Serum 1.34, 0.34, 0.53–1.86 MT377495
MU-DMSC-5/2017 TS-1, C6/36-3 Serum 1.01, 0.57, 0.45–2.24 MT377501

Results

Isolation of ZIKV

A total of 270 archival specimens (92 serum, 171 urine, and 7 autopsy tissue samples) from ZIKV-infected individuals were inoculated into Tx. splendens mosquitoes. Of 270 pooled mosquito suspensions, 30 were positive for the viral genomes as detected by real-time RT-PCR. These 30 suspensions were inoculated onto C6/36 cell monolayers, but only 11 virus isolates were obtained after three blinded subpassages. The results are shown in Table 1.

Plaque formation of ZIKV isolates

The ZIKV isolates’ capability to form plaques was determined in Vero cell monolayers maintained in 1.5%CMC semi-solid media. All 11 ZIKV isolates formed plaques of various sizes. Moreover, small plaques were found mixing with regular size plaques, suggesting the presence of quasi-species in the virus population of a ZIKV isolate at early passage. The average plaque size of these virus isolates varied from 0.79 to 4.4 mm. (Table 1). The MUMT-1/2016 ZIKV isolate gave the largest plaque size, and the MU-DMSC-6/2016 viral isolate gave the smallest. Examples of plaques of various sizes from three ZIKV isolates are shown in Fig 1, and from eight more isolates in S1 Fig.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

The difference in plaque sizes and mixed population (the bigger plaque shown by green arrow and smaller plaque shown by red arrow) of ZIKV isolates; (A) MUMT-1/2016 (2.37–4.40 mm.), (B) MU-DMSC-1/2017 (0.90–3.90 mm.) and (C) MU-DMSC-6/2016 (0.17–2.24 mm).

Virus titration

Quantification of the numbers of infectious viruses in ZIKV stocks was carried out by plaque and FFU assays. The results obtained from the two methods were comparable. The titers of most of the ZIKV isolate stocks were 106−107 PFU or FFU per ml. Overall, the viral titers obtained by plaque and FFU assays differed by 0.01–0.51 log10.

Quantification of the viral genomes was performed by real-time and digital droplet RT-PCR. Based on the real-time RT-PCR and the PAHO protocol, Ct values of 12–14 were obtained for all virus isolates. The Ct value was inversely correlated with the number of the viral genomes, but the exact number was unknown. On the other hand, the digital droplet RT-PCR determined the copy number of the viral genomes in the ZIKV stocks. Using digital PCR, the number of ZIKV genomes of all 11 viral isolate stocks lay between 108 and 109 copies/ml. These values were 1.13–3.16 log10 greater than the respective PFU and 1.60–3.24 log10 greater than the FFU. The values of the virus titers obtained by all 4 methods were compared, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of Zika viral titer between Plaque Forming Unit (PFU), Focus Forming Unit (FFU), real time RT-PCR (Ct) and droplet digital RT-PCR (copy number/ml).

Virus name Cell-based Molecular-based
PFU FFU Ct Copy number/ml
MUMT-1/2016 5.60 x 107 2.40 x 107 13.214 9.47 x 108
MU-DMSC-2/2016 3.60 x 106 1.12 x 106 14.043 8.93 x 108
MU-DMSC-3/2016 1.04 x 106 5.53 x 105 13.416 9.61 x 108
MU-DMSC-4/2016 1.26 x 107 9.93 x 106 12.621 1.23 x 109
MU-DMSC-5/2016 1.17 x 106 1.40 x 106 13.208 9.70 x 108
MU-DMSC-6/2016 9.88 x 105 1.20 x 106 12.339 1.42 x 109
MU-DMSC-1/2017 1.83 x 107 1.26 x 107 13.660 5.99 x 108
MU-DMSC-2/2017 1.48 x 106 1.13 x 106 12.603 1.09 x 109
MU-DMSC-3/2017 4.00 x 106 1.53 x 106 13.247 9.66 x 108
MU-DMSC-4/2017 1.24 x 106 1.46 x 106 13.731 9.29 x 108
MU-DMSC-5/2017 1.00 x 106 1.03 x 106 14.311 4.99 x 108

Discussion

Virus isolation was the gold standard method for viral disease diagnosis for many years until it was replaced by molecular techniques which identify viruses at the level of type, subtype and clade. Nevertheless, viral isolates are essential for studying their biology, e.g., morphology, size and structure of the viral particles, pathogenesis, drug sensitivity, and for vaccine development and evaluation.

Previous investigators showed that the dengue sera caused cell toxicity when directly inoculated onto the C6/36 cell monolayers during virus isolation [16]. The isolation rate of dengue viruses was increased using a mosquito inoculation technique [17]. We found that serum samples from ZIKV patients coagulated in the Vero or C6/36 culture supernatants, and failed to isolate ZIKV from a number of these specimens. Therefore, we employed the mosquito inoculation technique to solve the problem of serum toxicity, expecting to increase the ZIKV isolation rate.

We intrathoracically inoculated ZIKV genome-positive specimens into Tx. splendens. After 10 days of incubation, the inoculated mosquitoes were pooled and subjected to RT-PCR for detection of ZIKV genomes. Mosquito suspensions found to be RT-PCR positive were inoculated into the C6/36 cell cultures for three blinded passages. From 270 pools of mosquito suspensions, we obtained 30 real-time RT-PCR positive pools and a final yield of 11 ZIKV isolates. We obtained only one (0.6%) ZIKV isolate from 171 urine samples, 8 (8.7%) from 92 serum samples and 2 from 7 kinds of autopsy tissue from an abortive fetus. ZIKV is not stable in the urine. It degrades within 10 days, even when stored at -80°C [18]. Our study employed archival urine samples that were stored at -80°C for longer than one year. This likely explains our low ZIKV isolation rate with the urine specimens. The isolation rate was better with archival serum specimens. Moreover, we succeeded in isolating ZIKV by directly inoculating autopsy tissue suspensions onto Vero or C6/36 cell monolayers (unpublished data). Our colleague obtained only one ZIKV isolate out of 368 RT-PCR positive serum samples directly inoculated onto Vero cell cultures [19]. Of note, the plasma specimens may be superior to serum specimens. Previous investigators obtained 4 (9.5%) ZIKV isolates from 42 plasma samples after 3 passages onto Vero or C6/36 cells. Their yield was even higher when the plasma samples were inoculated onto monocyte-derived macrophage cultures for one passage, followed by viral expansion in Vero or C6/36 cells [20]. Unfortunately, we did not access to plasma specimens.

Plaque assay is a classical cell-based method to quantify the number of infectious viruses. Nevertheless, some viral isolates do not form plaques or form plaque with ill-defined morphology. In this study, the plaque sizes of ZIKV isolates varied from 0.79 to 4.40 mm. Mixed plaque sizes were observed with a single ZIKV isolate, suggesting the presence of a mixed virus population. Nevertheless, using the Sanger method for nucleotide sequencing, we did not see any double peaks in the chromatograms, a marker of a virus quasi-species.

Moreover, difference in plaque sizes across the viral isolates, particularly the larger plaque size of an isolate from the brain stem, may be related to the viral virulence. We are analyzing the virulence determinants and phylogenetic relationship of our genomic sequences against the others. Plaque assay is laborious, takes time, and consumes large volumes of reagents. The FFU assay was developed as an alternative cell-based method to the plaque assay. It relies on immunostaining techniques with tagged antibodies to demonstrate intracellular viral proteins [21]. The assay is as accurate as the plaque assay. Compared to the plaque assay, the FFU assay is faster, consumes less reagents, and has higher throughput. The FFU assay is run on 96-well plates, whereas the plaque assay employs 6 well- or 12 well- plates [22]. Our immunostaining in the FFU assay employed the 4G2 monoclonal antibody targeting the dengue-2 viral envelope and broadly reacts across flaviviruses [23]. We showed that the titers of each ZIKV isolate, as determined by plaque and FFU assays, were comparable. Unfortunately, the foci of infected cells from the FFU assay were too tiny to reveal the presence of virus quasi-species.

We also determined the amount of ZIKV genomes by molecular techniques. Real-time RT-PCR semi-quantitates the viral genomes as shown by the cycle threshold (Ct). This Ct value is inversely correlated with the copy numbers of the viral genome. Actual copy numbers of the target genes can be determined if the run is conducted along with the standard viral RNA and a calibration curve. In contrast, digital RT-PCR (based on measurement of a large number of positive micro-reactions in oil droplets) can determine the copy numbers of target genes without viral RNA standard and calibration curve [13, 24].

In our virus suspensions, the genome copy numbers measured by the molecular techniques were usually higher than the infectious virus titers determined by PFU or FFU assays. This was likely due to the ability of the molecular techniques to measure excess genomes that did not assemble into the virus particles [25] or to defective interfering particles that arose during viral replication [26, 27]. The molecular-based quantification methods require high-technology machines and expensive reagents that are not required by the infectivity-based assays. This study demonstrated that the ZIKV quantitation by the PFU assay, FFU assay, real-time RT-PCR, and digital RT-PCR were well correlated. The selection of the titration method should rely on the objectives of the specific research study. For example, molecular-based assays are suitable for the studies that need to know the amount of the viral genomes or monitor the viral response to drug treatment. In contrast, infectivity-based assays are suitable for the studies on serodiagnosis or determining virus reduction by anti-viral agents using neutralization assay.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

The plaque sizes of 8 ZIKV isolates; (A) MU-DMSC-2/2016, (B) MU-DMSC-3/2016, (C) MU-DMSC-4/2016, (D) MU-DMSC-5/2016, (E) MU-DMSC-2/2017, (F) MU-DMSC-3/2017, (G) MU-DMSC-4/2017 and (H) MU-DMSC-5/2017.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Tipsuda Chanmanee, Nattakan Thinpan and Anusara Jitsatja, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, for their laboratory assistance. We also thank Dusit Noree and Prapanit Wansopa, the National Institute of Health, Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health, for the mosquito cultivation. We also thank Dr.Arthur Brown for English editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by the National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand, Grant No. P-17-50551. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dick GW, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46(5):509–20. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(52)90042-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Macnamara FN. Zika virus: a report on three cases of human infection during an epidemic of jaundice in Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1954;48(2):139–45. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(54)90006-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Duffy MR, Chen TH, Hancock WT, Powers AM, Kool JL, Lanciotti RS, et al. Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2536–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0805715 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Oehler E, Watrin L, Larre P, Leparc-Goffart I, Lastere S, Valour F, et al. Zika virus infection complicated by Guillain-Barre syndrome-case report, French Polynesia, December 2013. Euro Surveill. 2014; 19(9):20720. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.es2014.19.9.20720 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mlakar J, Korva M, Tul N, Popovic M, Poljsak-Prijatelj M, Mraz J, et al. Zika virus associated with microcephaly. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):951–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600651 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Landry ML, St George K. Laboratory diagnosis of Zika virus infection. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141(1):60–7. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0406-SA . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chan JF, Yip CC, Tsang JO, Tee KM, Cai JP, Chik KK, et al. Differential cell line susceptibility to the emerging Zika virus: implications for disease pathogenesis, non-vector-borne human transmission and animal reservoirs. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2016;5:e93. doi: 10.1038/emi.2016.99 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Choy MM, Gubler DJ. Isolation and titration of dengue viruses by the mosquito inoculation technique. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1138:15–25. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0348-1_2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rosen L. The use of Toxorhynchites mosquitoes to detect and propagate dengue and other arboviruses. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1981;30(1):177–83. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1981.30.177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rosen L, Gubler D. The use of mosquitoes to detect and propagate dengue viruses. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1974;23(6):1153–60. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1974.23.1153 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bustin SA, Mueller R. Real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) and its potential use in clinical diagnosis. Clin Sci (Lond). 2005;109(4):365–79. doi: 10.1042/CS20050086 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Clementi M. Quantitative molecular analysis of virus expression and replication. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(6):2030–6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.6.2030-2036.2000 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sedlak RH, Jerome KR. Viral diagnostics in the era of digital polymerase chain reaction. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;75(1):1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.10.009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waggoner JJ, Pinsky BA. Zika virus: Diagnostics for an emerging pandemic threat. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(4):860–7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00279-16 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.de Chaumont F, Dallongeville S, Chenouard N, Herve N, Pop S, Provoost T, et al. Icy: an open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nat Methods 2012;9(7):690–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2075 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kuno G, Gubler DJ, Velez M, Oliver A. Comparative sensitivity of three mosquito cell lines for isolation of dengue viruses. Bull World Health Organ. 1985;63(2):279–86. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jarman RG, Nisalak A, Anderson KB, Klungthong C, Thaisomboonsuk B, Kaneechit W, et al. Factors influencing dengue virus isolation by C6/36 cell culture and mosquito inoculation of nested PCR-positive clinical samples. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84(2):218–23. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2011.09-0798 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tan SK, Sahoo MK, Milligan SB, Taylor N, Pinsky BA. Stability of Zika virus in urine: specimen processing considerations and implications for the detection of RNA targets in urine. J Virol Methods. 2017;248:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.04.018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ruchusatsawat K, Wongjaroen P, Posanacharoen A, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Sangkitporn S, Cummings DAT, et al. Long-term circulation of Zika virus in Thailand: an observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(4):439–46. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30718-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sippert E, Rocha BC, Assis FL, Ok S, Rios M. Use of monocyte-derived macrophage culture increases Zika virus isolation rate from human plasma. Viruses. 2019; 11(11):1058. doi: 10.3390/v11111058 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kimura-Kuroda J, Yasui K. A focus assay method for Japanese encephalitis virus using complement and anti-virus serum. Microbiol Immunol. 1985;29(1):55–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.1985.tb00802.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Borisevich V, Nistler R, Hudman D, Yamshchikov G, Seregin A, Yamshchikov V. A highly sensitive and versatile virus titration assay in the 96-well microplate format. J Virol Methods. 2008;147(2):197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2007.08.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gentry MK, Henchal EA, McCown JM, Brandt WE, Dalrymple JM. Identification of distinct antigenic determinants on dengue-2 virus using monoclonal antibodies. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1982;31(3 Pt 1):548–55. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1982.31.548 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Quan PL, Sauzade M, Brouzes E. dPCR: A technology review. Sensors (Basel). 2018; 18(4):1271. doi: 10.3390/s18041271 ; PMCID. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yamamoto K, Ogasawara N, Yamamoto S, Takano K, Shiraishi T, Sato T, et al. Evaluation of consistency in quantification of gene copy number by real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction and virus titer by plaque-forming assay for human respiratory syncytial virus. Microbiol Immunol. 2018;62(2):90–8. doi: 10.1111/1348-0421.12563 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Barrett AD, Dimmock NJ. Defective interfering viruses and infections of animals. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1986;128:55–84. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-71272-2_2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Roux L, Simon AE, Holland JJ. Effects of defective interfering viruses on virus replication and pathogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Adv Virus Res. 1991;40:181–211. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3527(08)60279-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Juan Carlos de la Torre

6 May 2021

PONE-D-21-11564

Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Puthavathana

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

It would be critically important addressing the issue raised by the reviewer about the genotype of the ZIKV isolates exhibiting different plaque phenotypes. In addition, the reviewer cited a number of minor issues that you need to adequately address in the revised version of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Carlos de la Torre, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

  1. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

  1. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript “Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods” by Dangsagul et al., the authors attempted to isolate Zika virus (ZIKV) from a total of 270 specimens (92 sera, 171 urines, and 7 autopsy tissue samples) by intrathoracic inoculation of samples into Toxorhynchitis splendens mosquitoes, followed by three passages in C6/36 mosquito cells. From these 270 samples, the authors were able to isolate ZIKV from 11 samples. Isolated ZIKV were titrated by plaque (plaque forming units, PFU) and immunofluorescence (focus forming units) assays in Vero cells and viral genome copies were determined by real time RT-PCR and digital RT-PCR. The manuscripts demonstrate the feasibility of isolate ZIKV using inoculation of Toxorhynchitis splendens mosquitoes followed by passage in C6/36 mosquito cells, and that plaque and immunofluorescence assays results in similar viral titers while quantification by real-time or digital droplet RT-PCR were higher than those obtained using plaque or immunofluorescence assays.

Overall, this is a descriptive manuscript that could probably fit better in a methodology journal since provide with technical approaches for isolation and titration of ZIKV. Notably, although the authors have been able to isolate and observe differences in the plaque phenotype of the isolated ZIKV, genome sequence of the viral genomes have not been provided. The manuscript will improve if the authors provide with the sequence analysis of the different isolated ZIKV that could explain the differences in the plaque phenotype. This is particularly important because the virus with the biggest plaque phenotype (MUMT-1/2016) was isolated from a brain sample, contrary to the other ZIKV that were isolated from either urine or serum samples.

There are also some minor concerns:

1) The authors could provide with plaque assays for the 11 isolated ZIKV (Table 1) rather than a selected set of 3 of them (Figure 1).

2) The authors indicate that some of the ZIKV isolates presented with viruses with different plaque sizes, suggesting the presence of mix population of viruses. However, plaque assays shown in Figure 1 suggest a similar plaque phenotype in the three isolated ZIKV MUM-1/2016 (A), MU-DMSC-1/2017 (B) and MU-DMSC-6/2016.

3) The authors should revise the manuscript to provide with some missing information (e.g. source of Vero cell lines) and to keep consistency with the nomenclature (e.g. ZIKV vs. Zika virus).

4) Line 219 indicate Table 2 but I think the authors refer to Table 1.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255314.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Jun 2021

Response to Reviewer

PONE-D-21-11564

Article title: Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Response: We have Dr. Arthur Brown, a native English speaker, editing our language in the revised manuscript as shown in acknowledgement.

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript “Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods” by Dangsagul et al., the authors attempted to isolate Zika virus (ZIKV) from a total of 270 specimens (92 sera, 171 urines, and 7 autopsy tissue samples) by intrathoracic inoculation of samples into Toxorhynchitis splendens mosquitoes, followed by three passages in C6/36 mosquito cells. From these 270 samples, the authors were able to isolate ZIKV from 11 samples. Isolated ZIKV were titrated by plaque (plaque forming units, PFU) and immunofluorescence (focus forming units) assays in Vero cells and viral genome copies were determined by real time RT-PCR and digital RT-PCR. The manuscripts demonstrate the feasibility of isolate ZIKV using inoculation of Toxorhynchitis splendens mosquitoes followed by passage in C6/36 mosquito cells, and that plaque and immunofluorescence assays results in similar viral titers while quantification by real-time or digital droplet RT-PCR were higher than those obtained using plaque or immunofluorescence assays.

Overall, this is a descriptive manuscript that could probably fit better in a methodology journal since provide with technical approaches for isolation and titration of ZIKV. Notably, although the authors have been able to isolate and observe differences in the plaque phenotype of the isolated ZIKV, genome sequence of the viral genomes have not been provided. The manuscript will improve if the authors provide with the sequence analysis of the different isolated ZIKV that could explain the differences in the plaque phenotype. This is particularly important because the virus with the biggest plaque phenotype (MUMT-1/2016) was isolated from a brain sample, contrary to the other ZIKV that were isolated from either urine or serum samples.

Response: We conducted complete genome sequencing of these 11 ZIKV isolates by the Sanger method and deposited the sequencing data in the GenBank database. The sequencing data will be released in June 2021 using the accession numbers as shown in Table 1. The information on molecular characterization of these 11 viruses together with the other ZIKV isolates in Thailand is shown in the other manuscript under reviewing process by the other publisher. In response to this important comment from the reviewer, we add more information about the genetics of these 11 ZIKV isolates in the Materials and Methods, and the Discussion of the revised manuscript as follows.

Line Nos. 201-204:

Genomic characteristics of the ZIKV isolates

Complete genome sequencing by the Sanger method showed that all 11 ZIKV isolates belonged to the Asian lineage. These sequences can be retrieved from the GenBank database using the accession numbers shown in Table 1.

Line Nos. 276-281:

Nevertheless, using the Sanger method for nucleotide sequencing, we did not see any double peaks in the chromatograms, a marker of a virus quasi-species. Moreover, difference in plaque sizes across the viral isolates, particularly the larger plaque size of an isolate from the brain stem, may be related to the viral virulence. We are analyzing the virulence determinants and phylogenetic relationship of our genomic sequences against the others.

There are also some minor concerns:

1) The authors could provide with plaque assays for the 11 isolated ZIKV (Table 1) rather than a selected set of 3 of them (Figure 1).

Response: We have included the plaque characteristics of 8 more ZIKV isolates in the S1 Fig. We have included this information in Line No. 223.

2) The authors indicate that some of the ZIKV isolates presented with viruses with different plaque sizes, suggesting the presence of mix population of viruses. However, plaque assays shown in Figure 1 suggest a similar plaque phenotype in the three isolated ZIKV MUM-1/2016 (A), MU-DMSC-1/2017 (B) and MU-DMSC-6/2016.

Response: The three ZIKV isolates mentioned displayed different plaque sizes, but the limitation of photograph resolution may have made the small plaque sizes not clearly visible.

We put the arrows to make the pictures clearer.

3) The authors should revise the manuscript to provide with some missing information (e.g. source of Vero cell lines) and to keep consistency with the nomenclature (e.g. ZIKV vs. Zika virus).

Response: The C6/36 cell line (ATCC CRL-1660) and Vero cell line (ATCC CCL-81) were used. Please see Line no.112, and 149, respectively. We replace the nomenclature of Zika virus with ZIKV.

4) Line 219 indicate Table 2 but I think the authors refer to Table 1.

Response: Thank you. We change “Table 2” in line 221 to “Table 1”.

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_10-06-2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Juan Carlos de la Torre

28 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-11564R1

Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Puthavathana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration of your revised version of the paper, we concluded that still needs a minor revision to thoroughly address the issue raised by the reviewer about the different plaque size phenotypes (see comments for Author). Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses this minor issue. 

When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Carlos de la Torre, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This revised version of a paper by Dangsagul and colleagues has addressed the main concerns raised by the reviewer of the original submission, with exception of the question raised by the reviewers about the plaque size phenotype.

The response provided by the authors is not satisfactory. The authors need to provide additional information about the characterization of the plaque size phenotype by confirming a stable plaque size phenotype of plaque purified viral populations exhibiting different plaque size shown in figure 1 (red and green arrows).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0255314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255314.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-11564R1 - [EMID:d7f4c12d9bb6967e]

Article title: Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This revised version of a paper by Dangsagul and colleagues has addressed the main concerns raised by the reviewer of the original submission, with exception of the question raised by the reviewers about the plaque size phenotype.

The response provided by the authors is not satisfactory. The authors need to provide additional information about the characterization of the plaque size phenotype by confirming a stable plaque size phenotype of plaque purified viral populations exhibiting different plaque size shown in figure 1 (red and green arrows).

Response to additional comment

Plaque variants or the mixed plaque size phenotype are common in several virus isolates of early passages. This phenotype may be due to the difference in fitness of the individual infectious virus to grow in new hosts. Usually, the virus with a larger plaque size replicates faster and will overgrow and replace the smaller plaque size after sub-passaging. Consequently, the virus preparation will contain a homogeneous population of larger plaque size.

Virologists performed plaque purification and characterization for specific purposes, such as to study the viral virulence determinants or when the purified virus population is essential for vaccine development or molecular cloning. Plaque purification and characterization by themselves are sufficient to serve as the specific aims in an article, as exampled below.

1. Kato F, Tajima S, Nakayama E, Kawai Y, Taniguchi S, Shibasaki K, et al. Characterization of large and small-plaque variants in the Zika virus clinical isolate ZIKV/Hu/S36/Chiba/2016. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16475-2.

2. Mandary MB, Masomian M, Ong SK, Poh CL. Characterization of plaque variants and the involvement of quasi-species in a population of EV-A71. Viruses. 2020;12(6):651. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12060651.

3. Jia Y, Moudy RM, Dupuis AP, Ngo KA, Maffei JG, Jerzak GV, et al. Characterization of a small plaque variant of West Nile virus isolated in New York in 2000. Virology. 2007;367(2):339-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2007.06.008.

Nevertheless, the objectives of our manuscript are to isolate Zika viruses from clinical specimens and determine the virus titers using multiple techniques: plaque assay, focus forming unit assay, droplet digital RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR. The plaque assay demonstrated that our Zika virus isolates were consisted of the population with mixed plaque sizes. Individual plaque, regardless of size or virulence was count as one infectious unit. Therefore, the objective of our manuscript on virus titration was fulfilled. Plaque purification and purification can take a year to finish, and the result gained does not add up much information for this manuscript. The technique should be carried out to serve a specific purpose that is more worthwhile than the virus quantification.

According to the explanation described above, we do not change the revised version of our manuscript. Please reconsider.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Additional Editor Comments_11-07-2021.docx

Decision Letter 2

Juan Carlos de la Torre

14 Jul 2021

Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

PONE-D-21-11564R2

Dear Dr. Puthavathana,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan Carlos de la Torre, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In this second revision of their paper, the authors have addressed the comment raised by the reviewer about the plaque size phenotype.

Although the response is far from satisfactory, the plaque size phenotype represents only a minor component of the paper and therefore it has a limited impact on the overall content of the paper.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Juan Carlos de la Torre

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-11564R2

Zika virus isolation, propagation, and quantification using multiple methods

Dear Dr. Puthavathana:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan Carlos de la Torre

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    The plaque sizes of 8 ZIKV isolates; (A) MU-DMSC-2/2016, (B) MU-DMSC-3/2016, (C) MU-DMSC-4/2016, (D) MU-DMSC-5/2016, (E) MU-DMSC-2/2017, (F) MU-DMSC-3/2017, (G) MU-DMSC-4/2017 and (H) MU-DMSC-5/2017.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_10-06-2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Additional Editor Comments_11-07-2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES