Simultaneous rapid culture for four respiratory viruses in the same cell monolayer using a differential multicolored fluorescent confirmatory stain

Brumback, B G; Wade, C D

doi:10.1128/jcm.34.4.798-801.1996

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of monoclonal antibody pools for presumptive identification of viral infections greatly simplifies the SV assay (9,13,14). Theoretically, this technique could be improved by using monoclonal antiserum pools labelled with different fluorochromes which would allow final viral identification in a single step (2,11). These reagents are not easily available, and the need for a fluorescence microscope versatile enough to detect all the fluorochromes makes this approach difficult (11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Shell Vial Assay Using Simultaneous Culture of HEp-2, LLC-MK2, and MDCK Cells in a Single Vial

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A shell vial assay with simultaneous culture of HEp-2, LLC-MK2, and MDCK cell lines in a single tube (CoHLM SV assay) was compared with traditional tube culture (TC) for the detection of the main respiratory viruses in 358 nasal wash specimens. A total of 170 strains were isolated from 168 virus-positive samples. A total of 94.1% of the strains (160 strains; 128 respiratory syncytial viruses and 32 other viruses) were detected by the CoHLM SV assay in 48 h, whereas 98.2% of the strains (167 strains; 132 respiratory syncytial viruses and 35 other viruses) were detected by TC in a mean time of 6 days. The CoHLM SV assay may be useful for the rapid detection of respiratory viruses.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Shell Vial Assay Using Simultaneous Culture of HEp-2, LLC-MK2, and MDCK Cells in a Single Vial

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the symptoms listed above, the combinations of findings including fever, cough, sore throat and nasal congestion can improve diagnostic accuracy [35]. [36,37]. Other methods are indirect where the clinical samples may be inoculated in cell cultures, eggs, or animals for growth of the virus and its further typing.…”

Section: Clinical Manifestation Of Human Influenza Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology, Biology, Clinical Manifestation and Prevention of Influenza Virus Disease: A Review

M¹

2018

VIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influenza means 'flu', caused by RNA viruses of Orthomyxoviridae family which is an infectious agent of birds and mammals. It causes mild to severe symptoms including chills, fever, sore throat, muscle pains, headache, coughing, fatigue but about 33% of the cases with influenza are asymptomatic. Since 1918, influenza virus has been one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality, especially among young children. Though the commonly circulating strain of the virus is not virulent enough to cause mortality, the ability of the virus genome to mutate at a very high rate may lead to the emergence of a highly virulent strain that may become the cause of the next pandemic. Apart from the influenza virus strain circulating in humans (H1N1 and H3N2), the avian influenza H5N1 H7 and H9 virus strains have also been reported to have caused human infections, H5N1 H7 and H9 have shown their ability to cross the species barrier from birds to humans and further replicate in humans. Influenza now spreads all over the world and it is also known as seasonal epidemics. This paper reviewed the epidemiology, biology, clinical manifestation and prevention of influenza virus.

show abstract

“…The test with the enterovirusspecific MAb scored negative for echovirus types 22, 23, and 25 and some strains of echovirus 1 and 3. Fifteen clinical adenovirus isolates that belonged to types 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,15,17,19,20, and 21 and that had been stored at Ϫ70°C were examined and tested positive by both techniques (data not shown).…”

Section: Influence Of Cell Type On the Rates Of Detection Of Enterovimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the more recently developed methods, the use of nucleic acid amplification techniques for the direct detection of enteroviruses and adenoviruses in clinical specimens is available only in laboratories highly specialized for the diagnosis of viral infections (7). On the other hand, rapid techniques with short-term culture and immunofluorescence for the detection of, for example, respiratory viruses in clinical specimens are widely used (2,6,11,12,15). Application of this approach for the examination of fecal specimens for adenoviruses and enteroviruses has been reported less often (17,19,20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Shell Vial Culture Technique for Detection of Enteroviruses and Adenoviruses in Fecal Specimens: Comparison with Conventional Virus Isolation Method

Doornum

Jong

1998

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of enteroviruses and adenoviruses mainly in fecal specimens by rapid culture with inoculation onto cell monolayers in flat-bottom tubes by centrifugation and immunofluorescence staining with genus-specific monoclonal antibodies was compared with that by the conventional virus isolation procedure. For both conventional culture and shell vial culture human lung fibroblast cells and tertiary monkey kidney cells were used. For enterovirus detection, 979 clinical specimens (916 stool specimens, 56 cerebrospinal fluid specimens, and 7 nasopharyngeal swabs) were used. Conventional culture detected 74 enterovirus isolates. A cytopathic effect compatible with the presence of an enterovirus after 3 days of incubation occurred in 25 of the 74 (34%) specimens that eventually became positive. The detection rate for enteroviruses by rapid cell culture after 2 to 3 days of incubation was 42 of 74 (57%). The genus-specific enterovirus monoclonal antibody did not react with strains of echovirus types 22 and 23 or enterovirus type 71. Rapid cell culture for the detection of adenoviruses was performed with 567 clinical specimens (536 stool specimens, 25 cerebrospinal fluid specimens, and 6 miscellaneous specimens), in which 42 adenoviruses were found by conventional culture. Nine of the 42 (21%) adenovirus isolates were detected by conventional culture within 3 days after inoculation, whereas 21 (50%) were found by rapid cell culture within 2 to 3 days. Only two of the nine specimens found to be positive for the enteric adenovirus type 41 by conventional culture as well by a type-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tested positive by rapid cell culture. In conclusion, the rapid shell vial assay allows the early detection and identification of enteroviruses and adenoviruses in clinical specimens but is markedly less sensitive than the conventional isolation procedure according to the eventual results of the conventional isolation procedure. Conventional cell culture remains a prerequisite for serotyping of enteroviral isolates. On the basis of the results for adenovirus type 41, the rapid detection of adenoviruses was not considered to be useful for the detection of clinically relevant adenoviruses in fecal samples.

show abstract

Simultaneous rapid culture for four respiratory viruses in the same cell monolayer using a differential multicolored fluorescent confirmatory stain

Cited by 14 publications

References 3 publications

Rapid Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Shell Vial Assay Using Simultaneous Culture of HEp-2, LLC-MK2, and MDCK Cells in a Single Vial

Rapid Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Shell Vial Assay Using Simultaneous Culture of HEp-2, LLC-MK2, and MDCK Cells in a Single Vial

Epidemiology, Biology, Clinical Manifestation and Prevention of Influenza Virus Disease: A Review

Rapid Shell Vial Culture Technique for Detection of Enteroviruses and Adenoviruses in Fecal Specimens: Comparison with Conventional Virus Isolation Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About