Van Doornum G J, De Jong J C
Laboratory of Public Health, Municipal Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Oct;36(10):2865-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.10.2865-2868.1998.
Detection of enteroviruses and adenoviruses mainly in fecal specimens by rapid culture with inoculation onto cell monolayers in flat-bottom tubes by centrifugation and immunofluorescence staining with genus-specific monoclonal antibodies was compared with that by the conventional virus isolation procedure. For both conventional culture and shell vial culture human lung fibroblast cells and tertiary monkey kidney cells were used. For enterovirus detection, 979 clinical specimens (916 stool specimens, 56 cerebrospinal fluid specimens, and 7 nasopharyngeal swabs) were used. Conventional culture detected 74 enterovirus isolates. A cytopathic effect compatible with the presence of an enterovirus after 3 days of incubation occurred in 25 of the 74 (34%) specimens that eventually became positive. The detection rate for enteroviruses by rapid cell culture after 2 to 3 days of incubation was 42 of 74 (57%). The genus-specific enterovirus monoclonal antibody did not react with strains of echovirus types 22 and 23 or enterovirus type 71. Rapid cell culture for the detection of adenoviruses was performed with 567 clinical specimens (536 stool specimens, 25 cerebrospinal fluid specimens, and 6 miscellaneous specimens), in which 42 adenoviruses were found by conventional culture. Nine of the 42 (21%) adenovirus isolates were detected by conventional culture within 3 days after inoculation, whereas 21 (50%) were found by rapid cell culture within 2 to 3 days. Only two of the nine specimens found to be positive for the enteric adenovirus type 41 by conventional culture as well by a type-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tested positive by rapid cell culture. In conclusion, the rapid shell vial assay allows the early detection and identification of enteroviruses and adenoviruses in clinical specimens but is markedly less sensitive than the conventional isolation procedure according to the eventual results of the conventional isolation procedure. Conventional cell culture remains a prerequisite for serotyping of enteroviral isolates. On the basis of the results for adenovirus type 41, the rapid detection of adenoviruses was not considered to be useful for the detection of clinically relevant adenoviruses in fecal samples.
通过将粪便标本接种到平底管中的单层细胞上进行离心快速培养,并用属特异性单克隆抗体进行免疫荧光染色来检测肠道病毒和腺病毒,将其与传统病毒分离程序的检测结果进行比较。对于传统培养和空斑瓶培养,均使用人肺成纤维细胞和三代猴肾细胞。对于肠道病毒检测,使用了979份临床标本(916份粪便标本、56份脑脊液标本和7份鼻咽拭子)。传统培养检测到74株肠道病毒分离株。在最终检测为阳性的74份标本中,有25份(34%)在培养3天后出现了与肠道病毒存在相符的细胞病变效应。培养2至3天后,快速细胞培养法对肠道病毒的检测率为74份标本中的42份(57%)。属特异性肠道病毒单克隆抗体与埃可病毒22型和23型毒株或肠道病毒71型不发生反应。对567份临床标本(536份粪便标本、25份脑脊液标本和6份其他标本)进行了用于检测腺病毒的快速细胞培养,其中传统培养发现42株腺病毒。42株腺病毒分离株中,9株(21%)在接种后3天内通过传统培养检测到,而21株(50%)在2至3天内通过快速细胞培养检测到。通过传统培养以及型特异性酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)检测为肠道腺病毒41型阳性的9份标本中,只有2份通过快速细胞培养检测为阳性。总之,快速空斑瓶检测法能够早期检测和鉴定临床标本中的肠道病毒和腺病毒,但根据传统分离程序的最终结果,其敏感性明显低于传统分离程序。传统细胞培养仍然是肠道病毒分离株血清分型的前提条件。基于腺病毒41型的检测结果,快速检测腺病毒对于粪便样本中临床相关腺病毒的检测被认为没有用处。