Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:43:43.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantal and graded dose-responses of bluetongue virus: a comparison of their sensitivity as assay methods for neutralizing antibody*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Sven-Eric Svehag
Sven-Eric Svehag
Affiliation:
Animal Disease Research Laboratory, Animal Disease and Parasite Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Veterinary Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington
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.

The sensitivity of quantal and graded responses to mouse-adapted bluetongue virus for the detection of neutralizing antibody was compared using probit and rankit analysis. The graded response, based on survival times, allowed the demonstration of antibody in highly dilute serum, in which antibody was not detected by the quantal response recording percentage death.

Quantal responses to bluetongue virus variants were compared with theoretical dose-response curves constructed according to the Poisson distribution for the random variation of virus particles in inocula. Of these theoretical curves the first term in the Poisson distribution gave the best approximation to the experimental data but the fit to normal distribution curves was better. The quantal responses to bluetongue virus did not appear to reflect the random variation of one-or-more infectious virus particles in inocula.

In graded responses to bluetongue virus, a rectilinear relationship was observed between reciprocal harmonic means of survival times and log virus dilutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 231 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

References

REFERENCES

Armitage, P. & Spicer, C. C. (1956). The detection of variation in host susceptibility in dilution counting experiments. J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliss, C. I. (1952). The Statistics of Bioassay. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1937). The calculation of the time mortality curve. Ann. appl. Biol. 24, 815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, W. R. & Beard, J. W. (1940). Host influence in the characterization of response to the papilloma protein and to vaccinia virus. J. infect. Dis. 67, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, W. R. (1956). Biological studies on the Rous sarcoma virus. IV. Interpretation of tumor-response data involving one inoculation site per chicken. J. natn. Cancer Inst. 16, 843.Google Scholar
Bryan, W. R. (1957). Interpretation of host response in quantitative studies on animal viruses. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 69, 698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryan, W. R. (1959). Quantitative biological experimentation in the virus and cancer fields. J. natn. Cancer Inst. 22, 129.Google ScholarPubMed
Fazekas de St Groth, S. & Cairns, H. J. F. (1952). Quantitative aspects of influenza virus multiplication. IV. Definition of constants and general discussion. J. Immun. 69, 173.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1952). Probit Analysis, 2nd ed.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gard, S. (1940). Encephalomyelitis of mice. II. A method for the measurement of virus activity. J. exp. Med. 72, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorham, J. R. (1957). A simple technique for the inoculation of the chorioallantoic membrane of chicken embryos. Am. J. vet. Res. 18, 691.Google Scholar
Henle, G. & Henle, W. (1946). Studies on the toxicity of influenza viruses. I. The effect of intracerebral injection of influenza viruses. J. exp. Med. 84, 623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ipsen, J. Jr. & Jerne, N. K. (1944). Graphical evaluation of the distribution of small experimental series. Acta path, microbiol. scand. 21, 342.Google Scholar
Ipsen, J. Jr. (1949). A practical method of estimating the mean and standard deviation of truncated normal distributions. Hum. Biol. 21, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Mandel, B. & Racker, E. (1953). Inhibition of Theiler's encephalomyelitis virus (GD VII strain) of mice by an intestinal mucopolysaccharide. J. exp. Med. 98, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meynell, G. G. (1957). The applicability of the hypothesis of independent action to fatal infections in mice given Salmonella typhimurium by mouth. J. gen. Microbiol. 16, 396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, P. A. P. (1954 a). The dilution assay of viruses. J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, P. A. P. (1954 b). The dilution assay of viruses. II. J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. F. (1938). Statistical studies of the nature of the infectious unit of vaccine virus. J. exp. Med. 67, 725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, H. G. & Kelly, B. (1957). Dose-response curves of toxic and infective actions of adenovirus in HeLa cell cultures. J. gen. Microbiol. 17, 517.Google Scholar
Price, W. C. (1946). Measurement of virus activity in plants. Biometr. Bull. 2, 81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating 50 percent endpoints. Am. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Smith, G. C. E. & Westgarth, D. R. (1957). The use of survival time in the analysis of neutralization tests for serum antibody surveys. J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 224.Google Scholar
Svehag, S-E. (1962). Quantitative studies of blue tongue virus in mice. Arch. ges. Virusforsch. 12, 363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed