4.4 Article

3D rotating wall vessel and 2D cell culture of four veterinary virus pathogens: A comparison of virus yields, portions of infectious particles and virus growth curves

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 228, Issue -, Pages 10-15

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2015.11.002

Keywords

3D virus culture; Bovine adenovirus; Bovine parainfluenza 3 virus; Suid herpesvirus 1; Vesicular stomatitis virus

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [LO1218]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [RO 0515]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Only very few comparative studies have been performed that evaluate general trends of virus growth under 3D in comparison with 2D cell culture conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate differences when four animal viruses are cultured in 2D and 3D. Suid herpesvirus 1 (SuHV-1), Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSIV), Bovine adenovirus (BAdV) and Bovine parainfluenza 3 virus (BPIV-3) were cultivated in 3D rotating wall vessels (RWVs) and conventional 2D cultures. The production of virus particles, the portion of infectious particles, and the infectious growth curves were compared. For all viruses, the production of virus particles (related to cell density), including the non-infectious ones, was lower in 3D than in 2D culture. The production of only infectious particles was significantly lower in BAdV and BPIV-3 in 3D cultures in relation to cell density. The two cultivation approaches resulted in significantly different virus particle-to-TCID50 ratios in three of the four viruses: lower in SuHV-1 and BPIV-3 and higher in BAdV in 3D culture. The infectious virus growth rates were not significantly different in all viruses. Although 3D RWV culture resulted in lower production of virus particles compared to 2D systems, the portion of infectious particles was higher for some viruses. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available