2020
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21217978
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cell Cultures for Virology: Usability, Advantages, and Prospects

Abstract: Virus detection in natural and clinical samples is a complicated problem in research and diagnostics. There are different approaches for virus isolation and identification, including PCR, CRISPR/Cas technology, NGS, immunoassays, and cell-based assays. Following the development of genetic engineering methods, approaches that utilize cell cultures have become useful and informative. Molecular biology methods allow increases in the sensitivity and specificity of cell cultures for certain viruses and can be used … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
10

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 105 publications
0
22
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Because of that, lack of viable viruses in air samples does not necessarily correlate to the absence of viable virus in RNA positive samples, and the presence of RNA should be interpreted as the probable presence of a viable virus, especially considering that viral culture is very difficult as it requires a week or more for completion and specialized laboratory equipment and skills, therefore being much less sensitive than detection by molecular methods 89,90 . Nonetheless, alternative methods for assessing viral infectivity, such as sample pre‐treatment before nucleic acid extraction with propidium monoazide (PMA) should be explored and validated 91‐93 . This method is based on the assumption that virus inactivation is associated with the loss of integrity of viral outer structures such as the envelope and capsid 94 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Because of that, lack of viable viruses in air samples does not necessarily correlate to the absence of viable virus in RNA positive samples, and the presence of RNA should be interpreted as the probable presence of a viable virus, especially considering that viral culture is very difficult as it requires a week or more for completion and specialized laboratory equipment and skills, therefore being much less sensitive than detection by molecular methods 89,90 . Nonetheless, alternative methods for assessing viral infectivity, such as sample pre‐treatment before nucleic acid extraction with propidium monoazide (PMA) should be explored and validated 91‐93 . This method is based on the assumption that virus inactivation is associated with the loss of integrity of viral outer structures such as the envelope and capsid 94 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding viral infectivity in air, Tang et al 41 [91][92][93] This method is based on the assumption that virus inactivation is associated with the loss of integrity of viral outer structures such as the envelope and capsid. 94 As PMA is a photoreactive intercalating dye with a high affinity for DNA and RNA, it forms a covalent linkage upon exposure to intense visible light.…”
Section: Referencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the tropism of a virus for a particular cell line can be enhanced by adapting the virus to the cell line. 33 Differences in the number of passages of different virus strains may cause the variations compared to the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 strain that we used in this study. Another possibility is that the NP produced by different VoC may have mutations that lead to different binding affinities of labeled MAbs used in this assay, causing changes in the FRET between the donor and acceptor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The differences we observed in the detection of NP from the different VoC are interesting and could be due to several factors. First, the tropism of a virus for a particular cell line can be enhanced by adapting the virus to the cell line 33 . Differences in the number of passages of different virus strains may cause the variations compared to the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 strain that we used in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%