2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2007.08.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Virioplankton ‘pegylation’: Use of PEG (polyethylene glycol) to concentrate and purify viruses in pelagic ecosystems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
56
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Viral concentration and purification were performed using polyethylene glycol (PEG) as described in Colombet et al (2007). Briefly, following successive prefiltration steps, viruses contained in 5 ml of o0.2 mm size-fraction of extracted subsamples were submitted to PEG precipitation.…”
Section: Concentration Of Virusesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Viral concentration and purification were performed using polyethylene glycol (PEG) as described in Colombet et al (2007). Briefly, following successive prefiltration steps, viruses contained in 5 ml of o0.2 mm size-fraction of extracted subsamples were submitted to PEG precipitation.…”
Section: Concentration Of Virusesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PEG precipitation has many advantages; it is a simple and inexpensive method that has been successfully applied to concentrate many different viruses from many different sample types. PEG precipitation has been a component of methods used to extract the enteroviruses (EV), poliovirus (PV), rotavirus (RV), hepatitis A virus (HAV) and norovirus (NoV) from water samples (Ali and Abdel-Dayem 2003;Colombet et al 2007;Huang et al 2000;Lewis and Metcalf 1988;Ramia and Sattar 1979;Shieh et al 2008;Yang and Xu 1993). The procedures have been extended to extractions from sewage and faecal samples as well as for monitoring salt and freshwater contamination with EV, PV, HAV, NoV, adenovirus (AdV) and bacteriophages (Hale et al 1996;Hovi et al 2001;La Rosa et al 2007;Li et al 1998;Muscillo et al 1994;Schwab et al 1995;Shieh et al 1995;van den Berg et al 2005).…”
Section: Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This allows streamlined testing for multiple classes of pathogens. The disadvantage for many food and environmental matrices is that most systems operate on the basis of filtration and as such, require clarified liquids for Extra steps needed (Ali and Abdel-Dayem 2003;Baert et al 2007Baert et al , 2008Casas and Sunen 2001;Colombet et al 2007;De Medici et al 1998;de Roda Husman et al 2007;Di Pinto et al 2004;Dix and Jaykus 1998;Guevremont et al 2006;Hafliger et al 1997;Hale et al 1996;Hovi et al 2001;Huang et al 2000;Jaykus et al 1996;Karamoko et al 2005;Kim et al 2008aKim et al , 2008bKingsley and Richards 2001;La Rosa et al 2007;Leggitt and Jaykus 2000;Lewis and Metcalf 1988;…”
Section: Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TFF has been the most preferred method used to concentrate viruses from natural waters because it reduces filter clogging and allows concentration of viruses from the hundreds of litres of sample that are often necessary for genomic and metagenomic analyses of aquatic viral populations (Wommack et al, 2010). This technique has several advantages over the adsorption-elution based methods with increased virus recovery efficiencies (Muscillo et al, 1997) and is currently the most efficient means of concentrating viruses from large volumes of water, with virus recoveries varying from 11 to 98% (Colombet et al, 2007).…”
Section: Serial Numbermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The virus recovery efficiency in the present study ranged from 7.5 to 89.61% with an average of 57.84% with WSSV spiked in 100 kDa filtered sterile seawater. Colombet et al (2007) reported that viral recovery efficiency of ultrafiltration averaged 52% (range 11-98%), while comparing pegylation to concentrate viruses. Applying a double filtration method (i.e.…”
Section: Virus Recovery By Ultrafiltrationmentioning
confidence: 99%