Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:40:38.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Egg-grown and tissue-culture-grown variants of influenza A (H3N2) virus with special attention to their use as antigens in seroepidemiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

R. Pyhälä ,
L. Pyhälä ,
M. Valle  and
K. Aho
R. Pyhälä
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
L. Pyhälä
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
M. Valle
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
K. Aho
Affiliation:
National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, SF-00280 Helsinki, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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 field strain of influenza A (H3N2) virus isolated in embryonated eggs during the 1984–5 influenza outbreak (A/Finland/13/85E) was compared in an antigenic analysis with virus from the same clinical specimen isolated in MDCK cell cultures (A/Finland/13/85M). The M-virus appeared to be more sensitive to haemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies against heterologous viruses than did the Evirus. The results of propagation and plaque purification experiments support the hypothesis that a single clinical specimen may consist of distinct antigenic variant subpopulations promoted selectively by the host during isolation procedures. Receptor-binding properties are discussed as a possible explanation for this selectivity.

A set of 471 paired sera consisting of pre-epidemic and post-epidemic specimens taken from the same subjects in 1984–5 was studied for haemagglutinationinhibiting antibodies to six influenza A (H3N2) virus strains, including the E-virus and the M-virus from A/Finland/13/85. Of the antigens used, the M-virus detected significant antibody increases more frequently than did the E-virus (10·0 v. 5·9%). The superiority of the M-virus may rest primarily in its ability to pick out anamnestic antibody responses. Irrespective of this cross-reactivity, preepidemic antibody to the M-virus was fairly well associated with protection. In the set of sera (230 specimens) collected in summer 1985 to represent different age groups, the antibody status against the M-virus was significantly better than the status against the E-virus. The results suggest that, at least in some instances, antibody to MDCK-grown virus is a more accurate indicator of the immune status of a community than antibodies to egg-grown virus variants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 745 - 753
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Beyer, W. E. P. & Masurel, N. (1985). Antigenic heterogeneity among influenza A (H3N2) field isolates during an outbreak in 1982/83, estimated by methods of numerical taxonomy. Journal of Hygiene 94, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, S. M., Higa, H. H. & Paulson, J. C. (1981). Different cell-surface receptor determinants of antigenically similar influenza virus hemagglutinins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 256, 8357–8363.Google Scholar
Choppin, P. W. & Tamm, I. (1960). Studies of two kinds of virus particles which comprise influenza A2 virus strains. I. Characterization of stable homogeneous substrains in reactions with specific antibody, mucoprotein inhibitors, and erythrocytes. Journal of Experimental Medicine 112, 895–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deom, C. M., Caton, A. J. & Schulze, I. T. (1986). Host cell-mediated selection of a mutant influenza A virus that has lost a complex oligosaccharide from the tip of the hemagglutinin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83, 3771–3775.Google Scholar
Kendal, A. P., Pekeira, M. S. & Skehel, J. J. (1982). Concepts and Procedures for Laboratory Based Influenza Surveillance. Washington. D.C.Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
Lathey, J. L., Van Voris, L. P. & Belshe, R. B. (1986). Superiority of tissue-culture-grown antigens over egg-grown antigens for serologic diagnosis of influenza B virus infections. Journal of Medical Virology 19, 155–159.Google Scholar
Patterson, S. & Oxford, J. S. (1986). Analysis of antigenic determinants on internal and external proteins of influenza virus and identification of antigenic subpopulations of virions in recent field isolates using monoclonal antibodies and immunogold labelling. Archives of Virology 88, 189–202.Google Scholar
Pyhälä, R. & Aho, K. (1975). Serum HI antibody and protection against influenza: a followup survey at community level of three epidemics caused by different H3X2-variants. International Journal of Epidemiology 4, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyhälä, R. & Pyhälä, L. (1987). Antigenic analysis of intraepidemic variants of influenza A (H3N2) viruses by hyperimmune rat antisera. Journal of Virological Methods. 15, 259–265.Google Scholar
Pyhälä, R., Pyhälä, L. & Visakorpi, R. (1986). Intraepidemic heterogeneity of influenza A (H3N2) viruses in 1985: antigenic analysis and sensitivity to non-specific inhibitors. Medical Biology 64, 277–284.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. S., Naeve, C. W., Webster, R. G., Bootman, J. S., Newman, R. & Schild, G. C. (1985). Alterations in the hemagglutinin associated with adaptation of influenza B virus to growth in eggs. Virology 143, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, G. N., Daniels, R. S., Skehel, J. J., Wiley, D.C. & Wang, X. (1985). Hostmediated selection of influenza virus receptor variants. Journal of Biological Chemistry 260, 7362–7367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, G. N. & Paulson, J. C. (1983). Receptor determinants of human and animal influenza virus isolates: differences in receptor specificity of the H3 hemagglutinin based on species of origin. Virology 127, 361–373.Google Scholar
Rogers, G. N., Pritchett, T. J., Lane, J. L. & Paulson, J. C. (1983). Differential sensitivity of human, avian, and equine influenza A viruses to a glycoprotein inhibitor of infection: selection of receptor specific variants. Virology 131, 394–408.Google Scholar
Rott, R., Orlich, M., Klenk, H.-D., Wang, M. L., Skehel, J. J. & Wiley, D.C. (1984). Studies on the adaptation of influenza viruses to MDCK cells. The EMBO Journal 3, 3329–3332.Google Scholar
Schild, G. C., Oxford, J. S., de Jong, J. C. & Webster, R. G. (1983). Evidence for host-cell selection of influenza virus antigen variants. Nature 303, 706–709.Google Scholar
Styk, B., Kostolansky, F., Russ, G. & Tumova, B. (1986). Characterization of influenza A-1983 epidemic strains by polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies and detection of two co-circulating antigenic variants. Acta Virologica 30, 220–227.Google Scholar
Tobita, K. & Kilbourne, E. D. (1974). Genetic recombination for antigenic markers of antigenically different strains of influenza B virus. Journal of Virology 13, 347–352.Google Scholar
Turner, R., Lathey, J. L., Van Voris, L. P. & Belshe, R. B. (1982). Serological diagnosis of influenza B virus infection: comparison of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the hemagglutination inhibition test. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 15, 824–829.Google Scholar