Pandemic influenza 2009 in Russia. Characteristics of the isolation and biological properties of viruses

[tetano]

Vopr Virusol. 2011 Mar-Apr;56(2):4-9.
[Pandemic influenza 2009 in Russia. Characteristics of the isolation and biological properties of viruses].
[Article in Russian]
[No authors listed]
Abstract

Research Institute of Influenza, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia, Saint Petersburg The characteristics of the isolation of pandemic influenza A(H1N1)v viruses were studied on chick embryos (CE) and MDCK cell culture. The materials (nasal swabs and autopsies) were collected in different regions Russia in the period from 20 July to 30 December 2009. The paper gives the data of the antigenic analysis of isolates, their capacity to multiply in different species-specific and tissue cell cultures. The viruses isolated on CE were shown to have higher hemagglutination titers and to be more stable. Isolation from the autopsies was effective only on CE. All the test cell lines other than MDCK were insensitive to the isolated pandemic influenza strains. The antigenic analysis showed no significant antigenic drift of the viruses isolated during the first wave of the pandemic in the Russian Federation.

PMID:
21545032
[PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21545032

 

[mixin]

Re: Pandemic influenza 2009 in Russia. Characteristics of the isolation and biological properties of viruses

I thought this study was especially interesting on 2 issues;

1.

Isolation from the autopsies was effective only on CE.

I remember that study that linked 225G with egg passage. I wonder why chick embryos would be the only effective method of isolation?

2.

All the test cell lines other than MDCK were insensitive to the isolated pandemic influenza strains.

This was news to me. I went through more than 150 pages of Gisaid 2009 isolate passage methods and found a wide range being used by other countries.

So, was this a problem specific to Russia, specific to 2009 isolates or something else going on.

I'll add my usual: I'm neither a viroligist nor a scientist, so I could just be misunderstanding the study.