A comparison of the susceptibility of three human gut tumour-derived differentiated epithelial cell lines, primary monkey kidney cells and human rhabdomyosarcoma cell line to 66-prototype strains of human enteroviruses

Abstract

The growth of prototype strains of 31 serotypes of ECHO, 3 polio, 6 Coxsackie B, 24 Coxsackie A and enterovirus serotypes 70 and 71 were tested in parallel in primary monkey kidney cells (PMK), RD cells and three gut tumour-derived differentiated epithelial cell lines (HRT-18 HT-29 in SKCO-1). All 31 serotypes of ECHO viruses grew in HT-29, 27 and SKCO-1, 5 in HRT-18, 29 in PMK and 29 in RD. There was good growth of poliovirus serotypes in all five cell types. Coxsackie B viruses grew well in all the cell lines except RD. Fifteen of the Coxsackie A viruses grew in SKCO-1, 4 in HT-29, 3 in HRT-18 and 7 in RD. Enterovirus serotypes 70 and 71 grew only in RD cells after 3 serial passages. These results showed that 2 of the gut tumour-derived cell lines, HT-29 and SKCO-1 had a markedly wider susceptibility, with comparable or wider sensitivity, for enteroviruses, than PMK and RD. While their use for field isolation from clinical samples is not yet fully established HT-29 and SKCO-1 would appear to be ideal for a variety of laboratory manipulations of the majority of enteroviruses.

Comparison of multiple shell vial cell lines for isolation of enteroviruses: A national perspective

“…These findings agree with data from previous studies for isolation of group B coxsackieviruses (Menegus and Hollick, 1982;Patel et al, 1985;Dagan and Menegus, 1986;Dahling and Wright, 1986;Chonmaitree et al, 1988;Huang et al, 2002). While isolation of coxsackievirus group A serotypes from cell culture is difficult (Schmidt et al, 1975;Lipson et al, 1988), we recovered most of coxsackievirus A9 serotype from PMK cells.…”

“…Echovirus replication was adequately supported by RD cells in the present study, and previous reports corroborate these findings (Patel et al, 1985;Lipson et al, 1988;Kok et al, 1998;Wang et al, 2002;Perez-Ruiz et al, 2003). Without RD cells we would have failed to detect 10% of echovirus 30 isolates, the most common enterovirus isolated during 2004 (CDC, 2004).…”

“…Although data published previously support the use of multiple cell lines to enhance enterovirus isolation, the majority of these studies were performed over a decade ago (Herrmann et al, 1972;Patel et al, 1985;Dagan and Menegus, 1986;Chonmaitree et al, 1988), employed conventional tube cultures alone (Dagan and Menegus, 1986;Chonmaitree et al, 1988;Johnston and Siegel, 1990), were limited by small sample sizes (Kok et al, 1998;Reina et al, 2000), or used a limited number of cell lines (Van Doornum and De Jong, 1998;Perez-Ruiz et al, 2003). Using shell vial culture, we evaluated over 1000 enterovirus isolates, which included a breadth of serotypes circulating nationally over a 3-year period, and had the added advantage of comparing the performance characteristics of five different cell lines concurrently.…”

HT-29 cells: a new substrate for rotavirus growth

“…Our results are in agreement with a previous study of Patel et al [22] demonstrating that two gut tumour-derived cell lines, HT-29 and SKCO-1, have a markedly wider susceptibility with comparable or wider sensitivity for enteroviruses than primary monkey kidney cells (PMK) and rhabdomyosarcoma cells (RD).…”

Enteric viruses in the aquatic environment

“…Other cell lines, derived from intestinal tissue, have been investigated for their ability to support the growth of enteric viruses. Most of these studies have been directed at growing the more fastidious agents like rotaviruses and astroviruses, but Patel et al . (1985) carried out a large survey on the susceptibility of a range of lines to different enteroviruses, including all 31 serotypes of echovirus; they found that two lines, HT‐29 and SKCO‐1 derived from human colonic carcinoma, had a markedly wider sensitivity for enteroviruses than primary monkey kidney or RD cell cultures.…”