Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays
Ongoing efforts to develop effective therapies against filoviruses rely, to different extents, on quantifying the amount of viable virus in samples by plaque, TCID<sub>50</sub>, and focus assays. Unfortunately, these techniques have inherent variance, and laboratory-specific preferences...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Microorganisms |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/1/156 |
| _version_ | 1797412781182418944 |
|---|---|
| author | Patrick T. Keiser Manu Anantpadma Hilary Staples Ricardo Carrion Robert A. Davey |
| author_facet | Patrick T. Keiser Manu Anantpadma Hilary Staples Ricardo Carrion Robert A. Davey |
| author_sort | Patrick T. Keiser |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Ongoing efforts to develop effective therapies against filoviruses rely, to different extents, on quantifying the amount of viable virus in samples by plaque, TCID<sub>50</sub>, and focus assays. Unfortunately, these techniques have inherent variance, and laboratory-specific preferences make direct comparison of data difficult. Additionally, human errors such as operator errors and subjective bias can further compound the differences in outcomes. To overcome these biases, we developed a computer-based automated image-processing method for a focus assay based on the open-source CellProfiler software platform, which enables high-throughput screening of many treatment samples at one time. We compared virus titers calculated using this platform to plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> assays using common stocks of virus for 3 major Filovirus species, <i>Zaire ebolavirus</i>, <i>Sudan ebolavirus</i>, and <i>Marburg marburgvirus</i> with each assay performed by multiple operators on multiple days. We show that plaque assays give comparable findings that differ by less than 3-fold. Focus-forming unit (FFU) and TCID<sub>50</sub> assays differ by 10-fold or less from the plaque assays due a higher (FFU) and lower (TCID<sub>50</sub>) sensitivity. However, reproducibility and accuracy of each assay differs significantly with Neutral Red Agarose Overlay plaque assays and TCID<sub>50</sub> with the lowest reproducibility due to subjective analysis and operator error. Both crystal violet methylcellulose overlay plaque assay and focus assays perform best for accuracy and the focus assay performs best for speed and throughput. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T05:07:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-92d68d4e24bd420c8195f4a227a80863 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2607 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T05:07:10Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Microorganisms |
| spelling | doaj.art-92d68d4e24bd420c8195f4a227a808632023-12-03T12:53:15ZengMDPI AGMicroorganisms2076-26072021-01-019115610.3390/microorganisms9010156Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> AssaysPatrick T. Keiser0Manu Anantpadma1Hilary Staples2Ricardo Carrion3Robert A. Davey4Department of Microbiology, National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USADepartment of Microbiology, National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USADisease Intervention & Prevention, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, TX 78227, USADisease Intervention & Prevention, Texas Biomedical Research Institute, San Antonio, TX 78227, USADepartment of Microbiology, National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USAOngoing efforts to develop effective therapies against filoviruses rely, to different extents, on quantifying the amount of viable virus in samples by plaque, TCID<sub>50</sub>, and focus assays. Unfortunately, these techniques have inherent variance, and laboratory-specific preferences make direct comparison of data difficult. Additionally, human errors such as operator errors and subjective bias can further compound the differences in outcomes. To overcome these biases, we developed a computer-based automated image-processing method for a focus assay based on the open-source CellProfiler software platform, which enables high-throughput screening of many treatment samples at one time. We compared virus titers calculated using this platform to plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> assays using common stocks of virus for 3 major Filovirus species, <i>Zaire ebolavirus</i>, <i>Sudan ebolavirus</i>, and <i>Marburg marburgvirus</i> with each assay performed by multiple operators on multiple days. We show that plaque assays give comparable findings that differ by less than 3-fold. Focus-forming unit (FFU) and TCID<sub>50</sub> assays differ by 10-fold or less from the plaque assays due a higher (FFU) and lower (TCID<sub>50</sub>) sensitivity. However, reproducibility and accuracy of each assay differs significantly with Neutral Red Agarose Overlay plaque assays and TCID<sub>50</sub> with the lowest reproducibility due to subjective analysis and operator error. Both crystal violet methylcellulose overlay plaque assay and focus assays perform best for accuracy and the focus assay performs best for speed and throughput.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/1/156plaque assayTCID<sub>50</sub>FFUfilovirusEbolaMarburg virus |
| spellingShingle | Patrick T. Keiser Manu Anantpadma Hilary Staples Ricardo Carrion Robert A. Davey Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays Microorganisms plaque assay TCID<sub>50</sub> FFU filovirus Ebola Marburg virus |
| title | Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays |
| title_full | Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays |
| title_fullStr | Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays |
| title_full_unstemmed | Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays |
| title_short | Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID<sub>50</sub> Assays |
| title_sort | automation of infectious focus assay for determination of filovirus titers and direct comparison to plaque and tcid sub 50 sub assays |
| topic | plaque assay TCID<sub>50</sub> FFU filovirus Ebola Marburg virus |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/9/1/156 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT patricktkeiser automationofinfectiousfocusassayfordeterminationoffilovirustitersanddirectcomparisontoplaqueandtcidsub50subassays AT manuanantpadma automationofinfectiousfocusassayfordeterminationoffilovirustitersanddirectcomparisontoplaqueandtcidsub50subassays AT hilarystaples automationofinfectiousfocusassayfordeterminationoffilovirustitersanddirectcomparisontoplaqueandtcidsub50subassays AT ricardocarrion automationofinfectiousfocusassayfordeterminationoffilovirustitersanddirectcomparisontoplaqueandtcidsub50subassays AT robertadavey automationofinfectiousfocusassayfordeterminationoffilovirustitersanddirectcomparisontoplaqueandtcidsub50subassays |