| Literature DB >> 23056454 |
Wan Yang1, Subbiah Elankumaran, Linsey C Marr.
Abstract
Humidity has been associated with influenza's seasonality, but the mechanisms underlying the relationship remain unclear. There is no consistent explanation for influenza's transmission patterns that applies to both temperate and tropical regions. This study aimed to determine the relationship between ambient humidity and viability of the influenza A virus (IAV) during transmission between hosts and to explain the mechanisms underlying it. We measured the viability of IAV in droplets consisting of various model media, chosen to isolate effects of salts and proteins found in respiratory fluid, and in human mucus, at relative humidities (RH) ranging from 17% to 100%. In all media and mucus, viability was highest when RH was either close to 100% or below ∼50%. When RH decreased from 84% to 50%, the relationship between viability and RH depended on droplet composition: viability decreased in saline solutions, did not change significantly in solutions supplemented with proteins, and increased dramatically in mucus. Additionally, viral decay increased linearly with salt concentration in saline solutions but not when they were supplemented with proteins. There appear to be three regimes of IAV viability in droplets, defined by humidity: physiological conditions (∼100% RH) with high viability, concentrated conditions (50% to near 100% RH) with lower viability depending on the composition of media, and dry conditions (<50% RH) with high viability. This paradigm could help resolve conflicting findings in the literature on the relationship between IAV viability in aerosols and humidity, and results in human mucus could help explain influenza's seasonality in different regions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23056454 PMCID: PMC3463543 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Media used in studies of influenza A virus viability versus RH.
| Study | Media | Salt content | Protein content | Other components | Reference |
| Hemmes | 1 part allantoic fluid and one part2% Difco peptone | ∼2.3 g L−1 (0.4 g L−1 K+, 0.9 g L−1 Na+,0.9 g L−1 Cl−) | 10 g L−1 peptone | - |
|
| Harper 1961 | Allantoic fluid diluted 1∶8 or 1∶10 incasein McIlvaine’s buffer (pH 7.2) | ∼2.2 g L−1 (mainly Na2HPO4) | ∼1.9 g L−1 mainly casein | - |
|
| Shechmeister 1950 | Allantoic fluid in 0.1 M Sorensen’sphosphate buffer (pH 7.1) | 19.6 g L−1 (8.09 g L−1 NaH2PO4, 9.51 gL−1 Na2HPO4) | ∼1 g L−1 in allantoicfluid | - |
|
| Schaffer | MEM | 9.88 g L−1 (6.8 g L−1 NaCl, 2.2 g L−1NaHCO3, and others) | 0 | Amino acids, vitamins,glucose, others |
|
| MEM+0.1% BSA | 9.88 g L−1 | 1 g L−1 | Same as above | ||
| Allantoic fluid | ∼4.7 g L−1 (0.8 g L−1 K+, 1.8 g L−1 Na+,1.8 g L−1 Cl−) | ∼1 g L−1 | |||
| This work | PBS (pH 7.2) | 9.55 g L−1 (8 g L−1 NaCl, 0.2 g L−1 KCl,1.15 g L−1 Na2HPO4, 0.2 g L−1 KH2PO4) | 0 | None | |
| PBS+5% fetal calf serum (FCS) | Same as above | ∼3.5 g L−1 | Other componentsfrom FCS | ||
| Dulbecco's modified Eaglemedium (DMEM) | 10.92 g L−1 (6.4 g L−1 NaCl, 3.7 g L−1NaHCO3) | 0.42 g L−1 | Amino acids, vitamins,glucose, others | ||
| DMEM+5%FCS | Same as above | ∼3.9 g L−1 | Same as above |
Estimated;
Detailed composition of allantoic fluid is unknown.
Figure 1Relationship between RH and IAV viability in (A) media with mainly salts, (B) media with salts plus proteins, and (C) mucus. Error bars denote standard deviations.
Figure 2Viral decay over 3 h versus NaCl concentration in droplets consisting of four types of media.
Figure 3Crystals of the four media: (A) PBS, (B) PBS+FCS, (C) DMEM, (D) DMEM+FCS. Light microscope, 100X magnified; scale bar = 20 µm.
Figure 4Hypothesized relationship between RH and IAV viability in (A) droplets containing salts only and (B) droplets containing salts plus proteins.