English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ongoing efforts to develop effective therapies against filoviruses rely, to different extents, on quantifying the amount of viable virus in samples by plaque, TCID 50 , 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 50  assays using common stocks of virus for 3 major Filovirus species,  Zaire ebolavirus ,  Sudan ebolavirus , and  Marburg marburgvirus  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 50  assays differ by 10-fold or less from the plaque assays due a higher (FFU) and lower (TCID 50 ) sensitivity. However, reproducibility and accuracy of each assay differs significantly with Neutral Red Agarose Overlay plaque assays and TCID 50  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.

Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID50 Assays