1887

Abstract

SUMMARY: Placing live or inactivated vesicular stomatitis virus of one serotype on chick cells in tissue culture prevented most of the cells from releasing infective virus of the other serotype when super-infected with it (heterotypic exclusion). Inactivated virus did not prevent super-infection with the same serotype and had no effect on the latent period or rate of virus release (homotypic non-exclusion and non-interference). The ‘Indiana’ serotype was more effective as heterotypic excluding agent than was the ‘New Jersey’ serotype, and exclusion was noticeable when only 12 min. elapsed between interfering and challenge virus. Each cell liberated virus of only one serotype when infected with live virus of both serotypes, but the serotype released was often (20–40 %) not that of the particle first adsorbed. Heterotypic exclusion in fact behaved as if it were reversible and dependent on the multiplicities of infection, at least within the latent period. Many inactivated particles per cell were adsorbed before heterotypic exclusion was achieved.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-19-2-350
1958-10-01
2021-07-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/19/2/mic-19-2-350.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-19-2-350&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Baluda M. A. 1957; Homologous interference by ultraviolet-inactivated Newcastle disease virus. Virology 4:72
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooksby J. B. 1949; Differential diagnosis of vesicular stomatitis and foot and mouth disease. Examination of virus samples from Mexico with special reference to complement fixation. J. Hyg., Camb 47:384
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cooper P. D. 1955; A method for producing plaques in agar suspensions of animal cells. Virology 1:397
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper P. D. 1957; Some characteristics of vesicular stomatitis virus growth-curves in tissue culture. J. gen. Microbiol 17:327
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper P. D. 1958; ‘Shortened latency’as a result of multiple infection by vesicular stomatitis virus in chick cell culture. J. gen. Microbiol 19:340
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dulbecco R., Vogt M. 1954; Plaque formation and isolation of pure lines with poliomyelitis viruses. J. exp. Med 99:167
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fazekas de St Groth S., Edney M. 1952; Quantitative aspects of influenza virus multiplication. II. Heterologous interference. J. Immunol 69:160
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Frazer K. B. 1953; Genetic interaction and interference between the MEL and NWS strains of influenza A virus. Brit. J. exp. Path 34:319
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gotlieb T., Hirst G. K. 1956; The experimental production of combination forms of virus VI. Reactivation of influenza viruses after inactivation by ultraviolet light. Virology 2:235
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Luria S. E. 1953 General Virology p. 284 New York: Wiley and Sons;
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-19-2-350
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-19-2-350
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error