| Literature DB >> 34484643 |
Sergey V Generalov1, Pavel S Erokhin1, Oleg S Kuznetsov1, Elena G Abramova1,2, Ivan M Zhulidov1, Natalya A Osina1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mouse neutralization test is widely used to determine the level of anti-rabies antibodies, but it is labor-intensive and time consuming. Alternative methods for determining the neutralizing activity of anti-rabies sera and immunoglobulin in cell cultures are also known. Methods such as FAVN and RFFIT involve the use of fluorescent diagnostics. Determination of Cytopathic Effect (CPE) is often complicated due to features of rabies virus replication in cells. Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) is able to detect the interaction of the virus with the cell at an early stage. Therefore, in this study, a method has been developed for determining the specific activity of anti-rabies sera and immunoglobulin using AFM of cell cultures.Entities:
Keywords: Antibody activity; Atomic force microscopy; Rabies immunoglobulin; Rabies serum; Rabies virus; Roughness
Year: 2021 PMID: 34484643 PMCID: PMC8377403 DOI: 10.18502/ajmb.v13i3.6362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Avicenna J Med Biotechnol ISSN: 2008-2835
Figure 1.AFM visualization of the surface ultrastructure of cell cultures after 24 hr of cultivation (Image obtained by the mismatch method; section profile; image obtained by the semi-contact method): A) intact cell culture- BHK-21; B) rabies virus infected cell culture-BHK-21; C) intact cell culture- Vero; D) -rabies virus infected cell culture- Vero.
The rabies virus effect on the surface roughness of Vero and BHK-21 cells
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||||
| 1 | 25±1 | 35±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.5±0.1 | |
| 4 | 27±1 | 37±1 | 1.3±0.1 | 2.5±0.1 | |
| 24 | 29±1 | 44±1 | 1.9±0.1 | 2.7±0.1 | |
| 48 | 30±1 | 50±2 | 1.9±0.1 | 2.9±0.1 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 | 24±1 | 33±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 4 | 26±1 | 38±1 | 1.1±0.1 | 2.3±0.1 | |
| 24 | 28±1 | 42±2 | 1.7±0.1 | 2.7±0.1 | |
| 48 | 30±1 | 44±2 | 1.7±0.1 | 2.7±0.1 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 | 24±1 | 29±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 4 | 24±1 | 33±1 | 1.1±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 24 | 27±1 | 40±2 | 1.6±0.1 | 2.5±0.1 | |
| 48 | 28±1 | 42±3 | 1.6±0.1 | 2.5±0.1 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 | 21±1 | 32±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 4 | 22±1 | 33±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.1±0.1 | |
| 24 | 25±1 | 37±2 | 1.2±0.1 | 2.5±0.1 | |
| 48 | 25±1 | 37±2 | 1.3±0.1 | 2.7±0.1 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 | 21±1 | 30±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 1.9±0.1 | |
| 4 | 20±1 | 31±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 24 | 21±1 | 32±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 2.0±0.1 | |
| 48 | 22±1 | 32±1 | 1.1±0.1 | 2.1±0.1 | |
|
| |||||
| 1 | 21±1 | 30±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 1.9±0.1 | |
| 4 | 21±1 | 29±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 1.8±0.05 | |
| 24 | 20±1 | 30±1 | 1.1±0.1 | 1.9±0.1 | |
| 48 | 21±1 | 30±1 | 1.0±0.1 | 1.9±0.1 | |
Note: Each parameter was determined from 3 to 5 experiments.
Figure 2.Titer of specific activity of rabies immunoglobulin on cell cultures of Vero and BHK-21.
Figure 3.Comparison between the consistency of the activity values of antirabies sera and immunoglobulin obtained by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and neutralization reaction in White Mice (WM).