Gantzer C, Maul A, Audic J M, Schwartzbrod L
Faculté de Pharmacie, Laboratoire de Virologie, 54000 Nancy, France.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Nov;64(11):4307-12. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.11.4307-4312.1998.
In this study, three types of treated wastewater were tested for infectious enteroviruses, the enterovirus genome, somatic coliphages, and Bacteroides fragilis phages. The aim of this work was to determine whether the presence of the two types of bacteriophages or of the enterovirus genome was a good indicator of infectious enterovirus contamination. The enterovirus genome was detected by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Infectious enteroviruses were quantified by cell culturing (BGM cells), and the bacteriophages were quantified by plaque formation on the host bacterium (Escherichia coli or B. fragilis) in agar medium. Forty-eight samples of treated wastewater were analyzed. Sixteen samples had been subjected to a secondary treatment for 8 to 12 h (A), 16 had been subjected to a secondary treatment for 30 h (B1), and 16 had been subjected to both secondary and tertiary treatments (B2). The mean concentrations of somatic coliphages were 4.9 x 10(4) PFU . liter-1 for treatment line A, 9.8 x 10(3) PFU . liter-1 for B1, and 1.4 x 10(3) PFU . liter-1 for B2, with all the samples testing positive (100%). The mean concentrations of B. fragilis phages were 1.7 x 10(3) PFU . liter-1 for A (100% positive samples), 17 to 24 PFU . liter-1 for B1 (44% positive samples), and 0.8 to 13 PFU . liter-1 for B2 (6% positive samples). The mean concentrations of infectious enteroviruses were 4 most probable number of cytopathogenic units (MPNCU) . liter-1 for A (31% positive samples) and <1 MPNCU . liter-1 for B1 and B2 (0% positive samples). The percentages of samples testing positive for the enterovirus genome were 100% for A, 56% for B1, and 19% for B2. The percentages of samples testing positive for the enterovirus genome were significantly higher than those for infectious enteroviruses. This finding may have been due to the presence of noninfectious enteroviruses or to the presence of infectious enteroviruses that do not multiply in BGM cell cultures. However, under our experimental conditions, nondetection of the genome implies the absence of infectious viruses. There was a significant correlation between the concentration of somatic coliphages or B. fragilis phages and the presence of infectious enteroviruses or the presence of the enterovirus genome. However, the somatic coliphage concentration did not lead to fluctuations in the infectious enterovirus concentration, whereas the B. fragilis phage concentration did.
在本研究中,对三种经过处理的废水进行了检测,分析其中是否存在传染性肠道病毒、肠道病毒基因组、体细胞噬菌体和脆弱拟杆菌噬菌体。本研究的目的是确定这两种噬菌体或肠道病毒基因组的存在是否是传染性肠道病毒污染的良好指标。通过逆转录 - 聚合酶链反应检测肠道病毒基因组。通过细胞培养(BGM细胞)对传染性肠道病毒进行定量,通过在琼脂培养基中的宿主细菌(大肠杆菌或脆弱拟杆菌)上形成噬菌斑对噬菌体进行定量。分析了48个经处理废水的样本。16个样本进行了8至12小时的二级处理(A组),16个样本进行了30小时的二级处理(B1组),16个样本进行了二级和三级处理(B2组)。A组体细胞噬菌体的平均浓度为4.9×10⁴ PFU·升⁻¹,B1组为9.8×10³ PFU·升⁻¹,B2组为1.4×10³ PFU·升⁻¹,所有样本检测均呈阳性(100%)。A组脆弱拟杆菌噬菌体的平均浓度为1.7×10³ PFU·升⁻¹(样本阳性率100%),B1组为17至24 PFU·升⁻¹(样本阳性率44%),B2组为0.8至13 PFU·升⁻¹(样本阳性率为6%)。A组传染性肠道病毒的平均浓度为4个最可能的细胞病变单位数(MPNCU)·升⁻¹(样本阳性率31%),B1组和B2组<1 MPNCU·升⁻¹(样本阳性率0%)。肠道病毒基因组检测呈阳性的样本百分比,A组为100%,B1组为56%,B2组为19%。肠道病毒基因组检测呈阳性的样本百分比显著高于传染性肠道病毒检测呈阳性的样本百分比。这一发现可能是由于存在无传染性的肠道病毒,或者存在于BGM细胞培养中不增殖的传染性肠道病毒。然而,在我们的实验条件下,未检测到基因组意味着不存在传染性病毒。体细胞噬菌体或脆弱拟杆菌噬菌体的浓度与传染性肠道病毒的存在或肠道病毒基因组的存在之间存在显著相关性。然而,体细胞噬菌体浓度并未导致传染性肠道病毒浓度的波动,而脆弱拟杆菌噬菌体浓度则导致了这种波动。