Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T20:43:03.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the infectivity of influenza Viruses in two host Systems: the Allantois of infect Eggs and Surviving Allantois-on-Shell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. Fazekas de St Groth  and
D. O. White
S. Fazekas de St Groth
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
D. O. White
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
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.

It is shown that the assay for infectivity in bits of allantois-on-shell, which has been standardized on the BEL strain, is optimal also for nine representative strains of influenza virus tested.

On the average, the sensitivity of the technique is the same as of orthodox allantoic infectivity tests; its precision is always higher. The relative sensitivity of the two tests varies from strain to strain, the log tray/egg differences being SW (+0.88), MEL (+0.51), CAM (+0.31), PR8 (0.28), WSE (+0.25), HUT (−0.02), BEL (−0.22), FMI (−0.35), LEE (−0.47), BON (−1.02). This gradient is the same for fully infective and incomplete forms of influenza virus.

The tray/egg gradient of susceptibility is negatively correlated with the variation in host resistance.

The differences in susceptibility are not due to any effect of the plastic trays, to thermal inactivation of the virus, to differences in adsorption or viropexis in the two test systems or to the effect of allantoic fluid on the virus particle. The critical step has been shown to occur during the intracellular stage of multiplication.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 535 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

StFazekas De, Groth S. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 276.Google Scholar
StFazekas De, Groth S. & Graham, D. M. (1954). Brit. J. exp. Path. 35, 60.Google Scholar
StFazekas De, Groth S., Graham, D. M. & Stahl, A. (1959). In preparation.Google Scholar
StFazekas De, Groth S. & White, D. O. (1958a). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StFazekas De, Groth S. & White, D. O. (1958b). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 523.Google Scholar
Horsfall, F. L. (1954). J. exp. Med. 100, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, F. L. (1955). J. exp. Med. 102, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, S. (1954). Acta Microbiol. Ac. Sci. Hung. 1, 481.Google Scholar
Liu, O. C. & Henle, W. (1953). J. exp. Med. 97, 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954a). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954a). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rightsel, W. A., Schultz, P., Muething, D. & McLean, I. W. (1956). J. Immunol. 76, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D. O. (1959). In preparation.Google Scholar