Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:48:56.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of RK13, vervet monkey kidney and patas monkey kidney cell cultures for the isolation of rubella virus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Jennifer M. Best  and
J. E. Banatvala
Jennifer M. Best
Affiliation:
Clinical Virology Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology, St Thomas's Hospital, London, S.E. 1
J. E. Banatvala
Affiliation:
Clinical Virology Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology, St Thomas's Hospital, London, S.E. 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.

RK 13 and primary PMK and VMK cell cultures were compared for the isolation of RV by means of the simultaneous inoculation of original specimens and early passage material. RK 13 was found to be the most sensitive and reliable and provided a result for both isolation and neutralization in the shortest time. As the interpretation of CPE and the propagation of these cultures is sometimes difficult, the simultaneous use of a second system in which RV is easy to identify, e.g. VMK or PMK cell cultures, is recommended. Both PMK cell cultures and LLC-RK1 were suitable for isolating RV from clinical specimens. Preliminary studies with LLC-RK 1 indicate that it may provide an even more sensitive alternative to RK 13, but further studies employing clinical material require to be carried out before firm conclusions can be reached.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , September 1967 , pp. 263 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

References

REFERENCES

Beale, A. J., Christofinis, G. C. & Furminger, I. G. S. (1963). Rabbit cells susceptible to rubella virus. Lancet ii, 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, J. A., Butler, N. R. & Plotkin, S. A. (1964). Further serological studies on the rubella syndrome. Br. med. J. ii, 155.Google Scholar
Gregg, N. M. (1941). Congenital cataract following German measles in mother. Trans. ophthal. Soc. Aust. 3, 35.Google Scholar
Günalp, A. (1965). Growth and cytopathic effect of rubella virus in a line of green monkey kidney cells. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 118, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, R. N. & Butorac, G. (1966). The utility of rabbit kidney cell strain, LLC-RKL to rubella virus studies. Am. J. Epidem. 83, 509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, K., Taylor-Robinson, C. H. & Pillinger, S. E. (1963). Isolation of rubella virus from cases in Britain. Lancet, ii, 595.Google Scholar
Nagington, J. & Greaves, R. I. N. (1962). Preservation of tissue culture cells with liquid nitrogen. Nature, Lond. 194, 993.Google Scholar
Parkman, P. D., Buescher, E. L. & Artenstein, M. S. (1962). Recovery of rubella virus from recruits. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 111, 225.Google Scholar
Parkman, P. D., Buescher, E. L., Artenstein, M. S., McCown, J. M., Mundon, F. K. & Drudz, A. D. (1964). Studies of rubella. I. Properties of the virus. J. Immun. 93, 593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkman, P. D., Meyer, H. M., Kirschstein, R. L. & Hopps, H. E. (1966). Attenuated rubella virus I. Development and laboratory characterisation. New Engl. J. Med. 275, 569.Google Scholar
Parkman, P. D., Mundon, F. K., McCown, J. M. & Buescher, E. L. (1964). Studies of rubella. II. Neutralization of the virus. J. Immun. 93, 608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plotkin, S. A. (1964). Virologic assistance in the management of German measles in pregnancy. J. Am. med. Ass. 90, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent end points. Am. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar