Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2000, p. 2259-2262, Vol. 66, No. 5
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Fortified Sera and Their Use in Environmental
Virology
Jonathan L.
Hoyt and
Aaron B.
Margolin*
Department of Microbiology, Rudman Hall,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Received 8 July 1999/Accepted 15 February 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Four commercially available fortified sera were compared to fetal
bovine serum (FBS) with regard to their ability to maintain or increase
the sensitivity of the Buffalo green monkey (BGM) kidney cell line to
viral infection. Nine virus strains and five wastewater samples were
used. Fortified sera were comparable to FBS for the enumeration of some
viruses by the plaque method and for the detection of virus in
wastewater by the most-probable-number assay.
 |
TEXT |
Cell culture is currently the
standard method for isolating viruses in contaminated water, and the
Buffalo green monkey (BGM) kidney cell line is suggested for monitoring
the presence of viruses in water by this method (1, 6). A
drawback of using cell culture for routine monitoring is the high cost
incurred with the use of standard tissue culture practices. The major
contributor to the expense of tissue culture is the use of fetal bovine
serum (FBS) as an essential additive to culture media. FBS is the
standard for cultivating BGM cells, and it has been demonstrated that
this cell line is optimized for viral infection when FBS is used in the
culture medium (3). Alternatives that could replace FBS in
BGM tissue culture medium might greatly reduce the cost of monitoring
viruses in the environment.
Commercially available substitutes for FBS called fortified sera
contain low amounts of FBS that have been supplemented with growth
factors and nutrients known to be essential for cell growth. Fortified
serum has been used to cultivate BGM cells for the titration of viruses
by the plaque-forming method, and results comparable to those obtained
with FBS have been reported (2). Currently, the
most-probable-number (MPN) method is the standard for evaluating potable water for viral contamination; fortified sera have not been
evaluated by this method (1). In addition, many new
alternatives on the market have not been tested.
In this study, four commercially available fortified sera were compared
to FBS with regard to their ability to support BGM cell growth. The
enumeration of laboratory stock viruses and environmental isolates was
done by using BGM cells cultivated with each serum tested. Both the
plaque-forming and MPN methods were used for virus titration. The
growth rate of BGM cells with each serum was also measured.
BGM cells were cultivated in a 50/50 mixture of Dulbecco modified Eagle
medium and L-15 medium supplemented with 100 mM L-glutamine (3). Cells were grown in culture for 3 months using 10%
concentrations of each of the following sera: FBS (Gemini Bioproducts,
Calabasas, Calif.), CPSR-1 (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.),
Nuserum IV (Becton Dickinson Labware, Bedford, Mass.), Serum Plus (JRH Biosciences, Inc., Lenexa, Kans.) and FetalClone III (HyClone, Logan,
Utah). For growth curve and plaque assay analyses, cells were passaged
between 96 and 150 times. MPN analysis was done with cells passaged
between 169 and 174 times.
Poliovirus (LSC-1), poliovirus type 2, poliovirus type 3 (Sabin),
coxsackievirus A7 (Russian), coxsackievirus B3 (Nancy), coxsackievirus
B4 (Benschoten), coxsackievirus B5 (Faulkner), echovirus type 7 (Wallace) and echovirus type 11 (Gregory) were propagated using BGM
cells grown in basal medium containing 10% FBS. Viruses were harvested
after a 2- to 3-day incubation or until complete cytopathogenic effects
were observed.
Samples of raw sewage and mixtures of primary and secondary sludge were
collected from the Durham, N.H., wastewater treatment plant. Additional
sludge samples were obtained from an East Coast wastewater treatment
plant. Virus concentration was done on the day of collection when
possible by organic flocculation and centrifugation (1, 6).
The growth rate of BGM cells supplemented with each serum type was
measured. Twenty Nunclon culture tubes (Becton Dickinson Labware) were
seeded with 100,000 cells each for each serum test group in 2 ml of
growth medium. Two tubes from each group were selected every 24 h
for a period of 10 days. Monolayers were dispersed, and cell
concentrations were determined using a hemocytometer (Fisher
Scientific, Pittsburgh, Pa.).
The effects of serum type on BGM cell sensitivity to virus infection
were determined by titration of laboratory virus strains using the
serial-dilution plaque method (3). Agar overlays were
prepared using 1% flake agar (Gibco), a 2% concentration of the serum
being tested, medium 199 (Sigma Chemical Co.), and neutral red
viability stain. Plaques were identified and counted 3 to 4 days after
infection. Plaque assay data were compared by a Kruskall-Wallis
analysis of variance with ranking data. Sera were ranked by a method
previously described (3).
A MPN assay was done to determine serum effects on BGM cell
susceptibility to infection by wild-type viruses. Wastewater and sludge
grab samples were used as the sources of these viruses. A 400-µl
sample of concentrated eluate was inoculated onto BGM monolayers from
each serum test group. Cells were maintained in basal media containing
a 2% concentration of FBS or fortified serum and were observed for
cytopathogenic effects over a 14-day period. Positive flasks were
passaged a second or third time for confirmation. Positive samples were
each assayed in 18 T-25cm2 tissue culture flasks (Corning)
for MPN determination. MPNs were calculated using the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Most Probable Number Calculator,
version 1.0 (http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/other.htm). (EPA's
Most Probable Number Calculator version 1.00) (EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Figure 1 shows the growth rates of BGM
cells cultivated with each serum. For each serum type tested, the
highest cell density was achieved 192 h after seeding and the cell
density declined thereafter. The greatest density of cells was observed
with FBS as a medium supplement. The rates at which cell populations
doubled are shown in Fig. 1.

View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Growth comparison of BGM kidney cells over a 10-day
period. Cells were grown in basal medium supplemented with 10% FBS,
Nuserum IV(Becton Dickinson Labware), FetalClone III (HyClone), Serum
Plus (Serum +; JRH Biosciences, Inc.) or CPSR-1 (Sigma Chemical Co.).
Error bars indicate standard deviations. G, rate (in hours) at which
cell population doubled.
|
|
A comparison of sera based on plaque assay data collected from nine
different viruses is displayed in Table
1. With the exception of Serum Plus, the
sera tested supported long-term growth of BGM cells. Generally, none of
the cultures grown with the alternative sera were found to be more
sensitive to the viruses than cells cultivated with FBS. However,
FetalClone III, CPSR-I, and Nuserum IV were found to be applicable for
the enumeration of certain viruses by the plaque-forming method.
Plaques were not visible when Serum Plus was used as a growth
supplement, and therefore the serum was excluded from this study.
Figure 2 contains MPN values from five
wastewater and sludge samples that were evaluated using BGM cells grown
with each serum type. BGM cells cultivated with FBS, Nuserum IV, or
FetalClone III had on average the highest MPN values for the samples
tested. BGM cells grown with CPSR-1 and Serum Plus had lower average
MPN values than those grown with the other sera.

View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
A comparison of sera based on MPN values of
environmental samples. MPN values are based on 18 replicate tests. The
95% confidence limits are represented by error bars. Serum +, Serum
Plus.
|
|
In this study it was determined that the four fortified sera tested
could support the growth of BGM cells. FetalClone III, Nuserum IV, and
CPSR-I sustained the growth of BGM cells and were easily adapted to the
assays described herein without modification to existing protocols.
Additionally, these sera might be sufficient substitutes for FBS for
growing BGM cells to enumerate certain viruses by the plaque-forming
method. Serum Plus supported the growth of BGM cells only with frequent
medium changes, and it was incompatible with the plaque assay. MPN
analysis of environmental samples demonstrated that BGM cultures grown
with FBS, Nuserum IV, FetalClone III, or CPSR-1 were equally sensitive
to infection by wild-type viruses in the samples tested. An average
savings of 38% was realized when serum substitutes were used in place of FBS.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Microbiology, Rudman Hall, Rm. 235, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH 03824. Phone: (603) 862-2252. Fax: (603) 862-2621. E-mail: aaronm{at}christa.unh.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
American Public Health Association.
1992.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
|
| 2.
|
Dahling, D. R., and B. A. Wright.
1990.
Comparison of fortified calf serum, serum substitutes and fetal bovine serum with or without extenders for propagation of cell cultures for virus plaque assays.
J. Virol. Methods
27:287-294[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Dahling, D. R., and B. A. Wright.
1986.
Optimization of the BGM cell line culture and viral assay procedures for monitoring viruses in the environment.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
51:790-812[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Gilgen, M.,
B. Wegmuller,
P. Burkhalter,
H. P. Buhler,
U. Muller,
J. Luthy, and U. Candrian.
1995.
Reverse transcription PCR to detect enteroviruses in surface water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
61:1226-1231[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
Gleaves, C. A.,
D. H. Rice, and J. D. Meyers.
1990.
Use of serum substitutes for the growth of four cell lines commonly used for virus isolation.
J. Virol. Methods
28:171-178[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Messer, J. W.,
G. S. Fout,
F. W. Schaefer III,
D. R. Dahling, and R. E. Stetler.
1995.
ICR microbial laboratory manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2000, p. 2259-2262, Vol. 66, No. 5
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.