CV-1 and MRC-5 mixed cells for simultaneous detection of herpes simplex viruses and varicella zoster virus in skin lesions

Huang, Yung T.; Hite, Scott; Duane, Visar; Yan, Huimin

doi:10.1016/s1386-6532(01)00230-x

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The times needed for positive cultures are 1.4 and 5.2 days, respectively, for R-Mix and single culture (46,52). Additionally, a mixture of MRC-5 and CV1 cells facilitates multiplex detection of HSV-1, HSV-2, and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) (53,54). The CPE formed in these cocultured cell lines is as sensitive as fluorescence-based assays (54).…”

Section: Improved Virus Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, a mixture of MRC-5 and CV1 cells facilitates multiplex detection of HSV-1, HSV-2, and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) (53,54). The CPE formed in these cocultured cell lines is as sensitive as fluorescence-based assays (54). Finally, Vero/BHK-21 cocultured cells are adequate for concurrent isolation of peste des petits ruminants virus (PPRV) and foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) (14).…”

Section: Improved Virus Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYCoinfections involving viruses are being recognized to influence the disease pattern that occurs relative to that with single infection. Classically, we usually think of a clinical syndrome as the consequence of infection by a single virus that is isolated from clinical specimens. However, this biased laboratory approach omits detection of additional agents that could be contributing to the clinical outcome, including novel agents not usually considered pathogens. The presence of an additional agent may also interfere with the targeted isolation of a known virus. Viral interference, a phenomenon where one virus competitively suppresses replication of other coinfecting viruses, is the most common outcome of viral coinfections. In addition, coinfections can modulate virus virulence and cell death, thereby altering disease severity and epidemiology. Immunity to primary virus infection can also modulate immune responses to subsequent secondary infections. In this review, various virological mechanisms that determine viral persistence/exclusion during coinfections are discussed, and insights into the isolation/detection of multiple viruses are provided. We also discuss features of heterologous infections that impact the pattern of immune responsiveness that develops.

show abstract

Section: Improved Virus Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improved Virus Isolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another cocultivated cell line, H & V Mix FreshCells (Diagnostic Hybrids, Inc.), is comprised of a mixed monolayer of African green monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) kidney cells (strain CV1) and MRC-5 cells. In combination, these cells support the detection of many viruses, in particular HSV-1, HSV-2, and VZV (72). Specimens are inoculated into H & V shell vials and centrifuged at 700 ϫ g for 1 h at 24°C before incubation at 36°C in a CO 2 incubator.…”

Section: Virus Isolation In Cocultured Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantages of H & V cells for VZV include more isolates detected, faster recovery, and, for HSV, a final result in 2 days (72). Huang et al (72) concluded that H & V cells were as sensitive for the detection of HSV as were shell vial cultures of primary rabbit kidney cells and Mv1Lu cells pre-CPE stained at 2 days of incubation. VZV CPE in H&V cells was apparent by day 3 to 4, with many large foci; MRC-5 and A-549 shell vial cultures demonstrated fewer and smaller foci that were difficult to see at day 5.…”

Section: Virus Isolation In Cocultured Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Viral disease diagnosis has traditionally relied on the isolation of viral pathogens in cell cultures. Although this approach is often slow and requires considerable technical expertise, it has been regarded for decades as the “gold standard” for the laboratory diagnosis of viral disease. With the development of nonculture methods for the rapid detection of viral antigens and/or nucleic acids, the usefulness of viral culture has been questioned. This review describes advances in cell culture-based viral diagnostic products and techniques, including the use of newer cell culture formats, cryopreserved cell cultures, centrifugation-enhanced inoculation, precytopathogenic effect detection, cocultivated cell cultures, and transgenic cell lines. All of these contribute to more efficient and less technically demanding viral detection in cell culture. Although most laboratories combine various culture and nonculture approaches to optimize viral disease diagnosis, virus isolation in cell culture remains a useful approach, especially when a viable isolate is needed, if viable and nonviable virus must be differentiated, when infection is not characteristic of any single virus (i.e., when testing for only one virus is not sufficient), and when available culture-based methods can provide a result in a more timely fashion than molecular methods.

show abstract

“…It uses permissive cell lines in which material is deposited from skin or mucocutaneous lesions, or other biological fluids. The various cell lines include human diploid lung fibroblasts (MRC-5, WI-38), human lung carcinoma cells (A549) and primary rhesus monkey kidney cells, which have different yields in terms of viral replication [434,436,437] . However, the method suffers from the need to particular sampling techniques, and special sample transport and storage conditions as the material must be obtained from the base of fresh vesicles during the first 3-4 d, and immediately transported to the laboratory because the virus is labile [429] .…”

Section: Tzanck Smear Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiology laboratory and the management of mother-child varicella-zoster virus infection

Paschale

Clerici

2016

WJV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varicella-zoster virus, which is responsible for varicella (chickenpox) and herpes zoster (shingles), is ubiquitous and causes an acute infection among children, especially those aged less than six years. As 90% of adults have had varicella in childhood, it is unusual to encounter an infected pregnant woman but, if the disease does appear, it can lead to complications for both the mother and fetus or newborn. The major maternal complications include pneumonia, which can lead to death if not treated. If the virus passes to the fetus, congenital varicella syndrome, neonatal varicella (particularly serious if maternal rash appears in the days immediately before or after childbirth) or herpes zoster in the early years of life may occur depending on the time of infection. A Microbiology laboratory can help in the diagnosis and management of mother-child infection at four main times: (1) when a pregnant woman has been exposed to varicella or herpes zoster, a prompt search for specific antibodies can determine whether she is susceptible to, or protected against infection; (2) when a pregnant woman develops clinical symptoms consistent with varicella, the diagnosis is usually clinical, but a laboratory can be crucial if the symptoms are doubtful or otherwise unclear (atypical patterns in immunocompromised subjects, patients with post-vaccination varicella, or subjects who have received immunoglobulins), or if there is a need for a differential diagnosis between varicella and other types of dermatoses with vesicle formation; (3) when a prenatal diagnosis of uterine infection is required in order to detect cases of congenital varicella syndrome after the onset of varicella in the mother; and (4) when the baby is born and it is necessary to confirm a diagnosis of varicella (and its complications), make a differential diagnosis between varicella and other diseases with similar symptoms, or confirm a causal relationship between maternal varicella and malformations in a newborn. Core tip: Although varicella during pregnancy is infrequent and congenital varicella syndrome (CVS) is rare, every available means should be used to prevent and diagnose them. Microbiology laboratories can be crucial in these situations: Evaluating a mother's immune status with sensitive and specific tests for the detection of antibodies; allowing a rapid diagnosis with molecular biology tests when a clinical manifestation may be due to different etiologies; following pregnant women with varicella for the prenatal diagnosis of CVS with close collaboration between molecular biology investigators and specialists in imaging diagnostics.De Paschale M, Clerici P. Microbiology laboratory and the management of mother-child varicella-zoster virus infection. World

show abstract

CV-1 and MRC-5 mixed cells for simultaneous detection of herpes simplex viruses and varicella zoster virus in skin lesions

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections

Virological and Immunological Outcomes of Coinfections

Role of Cell Culture for Virus Detection in the Age of Technology

Microbiology laboratory and the management of mother-child varicella-zoster virus infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About