4.4 Article

A simple assay system for infection-enhancing and -neutralizing antibodies to dengue type 2 virus using layers of semi-adherent K562 cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 163, 期 2, 页码 360-367

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.10.026

关键词

ADE assay; Neutralization test; Fc-gamma receptor; Complement

资金

  1. WHO Vaccines and Biologicals (VB)
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  3. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [H21-shinkou-ippan-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple alternative to the dengue antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) assay was established. The new assay method utilizes cells attached to microplate wells, thereby eliminating cumbersome procedures typical of the conventional AIDE assay that utilizes suspension cells. Semi-adherent K562 cells bearing the Fc-gamma receptor (Fc gamma R) were cultured on poly-L-lysine-coated plates. The procedure consisted of (i) preparation of a virus-antibody-cell mixture in wells, (ii) cultivation at 37 degrees C for 24 h and (iii) fixation and immunostaining to count infected cells. Using monoclonal antibodies against dengue type 2 virus, the new system correlated with three conventional systems. Additionally, K562 cells were employed in a neutralization test. For this purpose, the virus-antibody mixture was incubated at 37 degrees C for 2 h prior to the addition of cells. As expected, K562 cells provided lower neutralizing antibody titers than did a conventional neutralization test using Vero cells, which do not have Fc gamma R, in monoclonals showing both neutralizing and enhancing activities. Since antibodies are present in polyclonal form in circulation, neutralization tests using K562 cells are considered to reveal a more accurate in vivo status than those using Vero cells. Human sera, positive for dengue virus antibodies, showed neutralizing and enhancing activities in a dose-dependent manner. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据