Characterization of a Parvovirus isolated from the diarrheic feces of a pig.

Yasuhara, Hisao; Matsui, Osamu; Hirahara, Tadashi; Ohgitani, Toshiaki; Tanaka, Masayuki; Kodama, Kazuo; Nakai, M.; Sasaki, Norimasa

doi:10.1292/jvms1939.51.337

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the viruses tested, the most resistant virus was PPV, exhibiting a D 10 of 8.8 min and an extrapolated reduction factor of 14.5 log 10 following a 2-h exposure. These results are consistent with other studies and further supports the ®nding that PPV is relatively resistant to inactivation when compared to other common porcine virus types (Pruss et al, 1999;Yasuhara et al, 1989). When calculating the theoretical extent of inactivation and expressing this data as a reduction factor, it is customary to calculate the length of time needed to reduce the viral load by 1 log 10 and then extrapolate the extent of inactivation over the total exposure time (AAMI TIR No.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…These virus types were chosen because they are representative of dierent virus types, of dierent sizes, or are possible contaminants found in the pig intestine. Porcine parvovirus was speci®cally chosen because it is highly resistant to heat and chemical inactivation (Yasuhara et al, 1989). Murine leukemia retrovirus was chosen as an alternative to porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), due to the lack of a readily available and validated assay system for PERV.…”

Section: Viruses and Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virus safety of a porcine‐derived medical device: Evaluation of a viral inactivation method

Hodde

Hiles²

2002

Biotech & Bioengineering

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a virus-inactivating process for use during the preparation of porcine-derived extracellular matrix biomaterials for human clinical implantation. Porcine small intestine, the source material for the tissue-engineered, small intestinal submucosa (SIS) biomaterial, was evaluated. Relevant enveloped, non-enveloped, and model viruses representative of different virus families were included in the investigation: porcine parvovirus (PPV), porcine reovirus, murine leukemia retrovirus (LRV), and porcine pseudorabies (herpes) virus (PRV). Samples of small intestine were deliberately inoculated with approximately 1 x 10(7) plaque-forming units (PFU) of virus which were thereafter exposed to a 0.18% peracetic acid/4.8% aqueous ethanol mixture for time periods ranging from 5 minutes to 2 hours. Enveloped viruses were more easily inactivated than non-enveloped viruses, but material processed for 30 minutes or longer inactivated all of the viruses. D(10) values were calculated and used to extrapolate the extent of inactivation after 2 hours. Viral titers were reduced by more than 14.0 log(10) PPV, 21.0 log(10) reovirus, 40.0 log(10) PRV, and 27.0 log(10) LRV, meeting international standards for viral sterility. These results demonstrate that treatment of porcine small intestine with a peracetic acid/ethanol solution leads to a virus-free, non-crosslinked biomaterial safe for xenotransplantation into humans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Viruses and Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virus safety of a porcine‐derived medical device: Evaluation of a viral inactivation method

Hodde

Hiles²

2002

Biotech & Bioengineering

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparative studies have revealed a profound variation in pathogenicity among PPV isolates (10,22,31,34). Moreover, other clinical manifestation besides reproductive failure, such as dermatitis (26) and enteric diseases (16,18,57), were reported to be associated with PPV. Dissection of the mechanisms controlling the permissiveness of different cells and tissues to support replication of this particular virus is therefore fundamental to an overall understanding of virus-induced disease. synthesis pathways for growth and replication, the host provides considerable influence over the fate of a parvovirus infection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restriction of porcine parvovirus replication in nonpermissive cells

Oraveerakul

Choi

Molitor

1992

J Virol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Swine testicle (ST) cells and Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells differ in their ability to support replication of porcine parvovirus (PPV). Viral replication events in ST cells, a permissive cell type, and MDCK cells, a nonpermissive cell type, were compared in an attempt to elucidate putative mechanisms of restrictive virus replication. Radiolabeled PPV bound to the cell surface of both cell types equally well and the binding was shown to be PPV specific, indicating that the restriction was not at the cell surface level. In contrast, profound differences in intracellular events in PPV replication were observed between these two cell types. Synthesis of viral DNA was limited in MDCK cells in that the percentage of cells with replicative-form DNA as determined by strand-specific probe in situ hybridization was approximately 100-fold lower in MDCK cells than in ST cells at the same multiplicity of infection. Northern (RNA) blot analysis, using oligonucleotide probes derived from both structural and nonstructural protein-coding regions of the PPV genome, revealed four PPV mRNA transcripts from infected ST cells. Comparatively, RNA species from the structural protein coding region were actively transcribed in MDCK cells, but synthesis of RNA species from the nonstructural protein coding region was negligible. Immunoprecipitation of viral polypeptides revealed the three characteristic structural polypeptides, VP1, VP2, and VP3, along with the nonstructural polypeptide, NS-1, from ST cells. In contrast, neither viral structural or nonstructural polypeptides nor progeny virions were produced from MDCK cells. The data suggest that mechanisms controlling permissiveness of cells to PPV infection are associated with the level of viral DNA replication, RNA transcription, and viral antigen expression but not absorption to the cell surface.

show abstract

“…The viruses were assigned the names pararotavirus or group C rotaviruses (32,312), atypical rotavirus (38,287), antigenically distinct rotaviruses (313), rotaviruslike viruses or group B rotaviruses (287), and novel rotaviruses (37). Other viruses that have been implicated in diarrhea of young farm animals include togavirus (bovine viral diarrhea virus) (390), parvovirus (353,354,411), calicivirus (36,39,310,397), adenoviruses (72,93,268), bredaviruses (402,403), and astroviruses (36,141,341,397).…”

Section: General Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some infectious causes of diarrhea in young farm animals.

Holland

1990

Clinical Microbiology Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterization of a Parvovirus isolated from the diarrheic feces of a pig.

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Virus safety of a porcine‐derived medical device: Evaluation of a viral inactivation method

Virus safety of a porcine‐derived medical device: Evaluation of a viral inactivation method

Restriction of porcine parvovirus replication in nonpermissive cells

Some infectious causes of diarrhea in young farm animals.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About