Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T07:12:00.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of susceptibility of primary monkey kidney cells, Hep 2 cells and HeLa cells to a variety of faecal viruses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. R. Pal ,
J. McQuillin  and
P. S. Gardner
S. R. Pal
Affiliation:
Virus and Tumour Research Section, Department of Microbiology, Royal Victoria Infirmary and King's College Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne 1
J. McQuillin
Affiliation:
Virus and Tumour Research Section, Department of Microbiology, Royal Victoria Infirmary and King's College Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne 1
P. S. Gardner
Affiliation:
Virus and Tumour Research Section, Department of Microbiology, Royal Victoria Infirmary and King's College Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne 1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A comparative study of the susceptibility of monkey kidney, Hep 2 and HeLa cells to enteroviruses and adenoviruses is made. It seems that this Hep 2 cell line is as effective as the monkey kidney cells in their susceptibility to vaccine strains of polioviruses and far better than monkey kidney cells in their susceptibility to strains of ECHO 6 and ECHO 11 from clinical material. It is as effective as, or slightly better than, HeLa cells for the isolation of adenoviruses. It also compares favourably with monkey kidney cells for the isolation of other enteroviruses.

We are most grateful to Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. for the supplies of monkey kidney cells used in this investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 1963 , pp. 493 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

References

Archetti, I., Weston, J. & Wenner, H. A. (1957). Adaptation of ECHO virus in HeLa cells. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 95, 265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, T., Tuirner, G., MacDonald, A. & Hamilton, D. A. (1960). Type 3 adenovirus infection. Lancet, ii, 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Echo Viruses (1955). Enteric cytopathic human orphan (ECHO) viruses. Science, 122, 1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukumi, H., Nishikawa, F. & Mitzutant, H. (1958). Further studies on the 57–67 virus. Japan. J. med. Sci. Biol. 11, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, P. S., Knox, E. G., Couxt, S. D. M. & Green, C. A. (1962). Virus infection and intussusception in childhood. Brit. med. J. ii, 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, J. T., Loosli, C. G., Smith, M., McCarthy, M. A. & Johnson, P. B. (1958). Adenovfruses. I. The effect of total incubation time in HeLa cell cultures on the isolation rate. J. infect. Dis. 103, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiung, G.-D. (1962). Further studies on characterisation and grouping of ECHO viruses. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 101, 413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanda, Y. & Melnick, J. L. (1959). In vitro differentiation of virulent and attenuated polioviruses by their growth characteristics on M.S. cells. J. exp. Med. 109, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munto-Ashman, D., Gardner, P. S., Taylor, C. E. D. & McDonald, J. C. (1958). Acute pharyngitis associated with adenovirus type 3 infection. Lancet, ii, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, S. A., Carp, R. I. & Graham, A. F. (1962). The polioviruses of man. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 101, 357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stulberg, C. S., Page, R. H. & Berman, L. (1958). Comparative behavior of 16 ECHO virus types in fibroblast-like and epithelial-like human cell strains. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 97, 355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed