Comparison of Rotavirus RF Strain and HSV-1 Titration by CCID50% and Plaque Assays

Authors
A. Teimoori 1
H. Soleimanjahi 2
F. Pourasgari 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Virology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associated Professor, Department of Virology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Karaj, Iran
Abstract
Objective: Titration of viruses is important to determine the quantity of virus in vaccine development, master virus seed stock preparation, viral vector studies and virus replication. In this study, we compared the CCID50% and plaque assay as a standard titration method for rotavirus (RF) and HSV-1. Methods: The MA104 and Vero cells were inoculated by RF and HSV-1 in 6- and 96-well plates. Following infection and adsorption, the optimal time for the cytopathic effect caused by the viruses was noted and the results compared. Results: The CPE (Cytopathic Effect) of RF was observed in less than 18 hours, which increased until 72 hours after inoculation. In HSV-1, the CPE was observed 24 and 72 hours after inoculation. The virus titration in the plaque assay was monitored at 96 hours post-infection for RF and at 72 hours post-infection for HSV-1. In both viruses the plaque titer method was lower than the CCID50 method, since the results indicated that 1 CCID50% was equal to 0.7 PFU. Conclusion: The plaque assay is one of the most accurate methods for viral titration. For the plaque assay, individual lesions may be isolated, which the plaques can be counted. The CCID50% method is not applicable for purification of homogenous viruses, nor is this technique reproducible.

Keywords

[1]     Condit RC. Principles of Virology. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, (Eds). Fields Virology, 5th ed, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007; p: 27-57.
[2]     Hierholzer JC, Killington RA. Virus isolation and quantitation. In: Mahy BWJ, (Eds). Virology methods manual. Academic Press, 1996; p: 26-46.
[3]     Carter JB, Saunders VA. Virology: principles and applications. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007; p: 10-29.
[4]     Cooper PD. The plaque assay of animal viruses. Adv Virus Res 1961; 8: 319-78.
[5]     Virus cultivation, Detection and Genetics. In: Enquist L, Krug R, Racaniello V, Skalka A, Flint S, (Eds). Principles of virology: molecular biology, pathogenesis, and control. Washington: ASM Press, 2004; p: 27-62.
[6]     Reed LJ, Muench H. A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Am J Epidemiol 1938; 27(3): 493-7.
[7]     Schmidt NJ. Cell Culture Procedures for Diagnostic Virology. In: Schmidt NJ, Emmons RW, (Eds). Diagnostic procedures for viral, rickettsial, and chlamydial infections. 6th ed, Washington: American Public Health Association, 1989; p: 51-98.
[8]     Flanagan TD, Barron AL. Plaque Formation by Mumps Virus and Inhibition by Antiserum. Appl Microbiol 1970; 19(2): 360–6.
[9]     Purnell SE, Ebdon JE, Taylor HD. Bacteriophage lysis of Enterococcus host strains: a tool for microbial source tracking? Environ Sci Technol 2011; 45(24): 10699-705.
[10]  Kenzaka T, Tani K, Nasu M. High-frequency phage-mediated gene transfer in freshwater environments determined at single-cell level. ISME J 2010; 4(5): 648-59.
[11]  Matsuno S, Inouye S, Kono R. Plaque assay of neonatal calf diarrhea virus and the neutralizing antibody in human sera. J Clin Microbiol 1977; 5(1): 1-4.
[12]  Arnold M, Patton JT, McDonald SM. Culturing, storage, and quantification of rotaviruses. Curr Protoc Microbiol 2009; Chapter 15: Unit 15C. 3.
[13]  Forcic D, Kosutić-Gulija T, Santak M, Jug R, Ivancic-Jelecki J, Markusic M, Mazuran R. Comparisons of mumps virus potency estimates obtained by 50% cell culture infective dose assay and plaque assay. Vaccine 2010; 28(7): 1887-92.
[14]  Sanjuán R, Nebot MR, Chirico N, Mansky LM, Belshaw R. Viral mutation rates. J Virol 2010; 84(19): 9733-48.
Pathobiology Reserach
Volume 15, Issue 2
June 2012
Pages 35-45