Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35859439›Full record

ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2022

Replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell lines used in public health surveillance programmes with special emphasis on biosafety.

Shailesh D Pawar, Sadhana S Kode, Sachin S Keng, Deeksha S Tare, Ousmane M Diop, Priya Abraham, Deepa K Sharma, Lucky Sangal, Pragya D Yadav, Varsha A Potdar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shailesh D PawarPoliovirus Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune; ICMR-National Institute of Virology-Mumbai Unit, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sadhana S KodePoliovirus Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Sachin S KengPoliovirus Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Deeksha S TarePoliovirus Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Ousmane M DiopWorld Health Organization Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Priya AbrahamICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Deepa K SharmaICMR-National Institute of Virology-Mumbai Unit, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Lucky SangalRegional Office for South-East Asia, World Health Organization, New Delhi, India.
Pragya D YadavMaximum Containment Laboratory, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Varsha A PotdarHuman Influenza Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
ICMR-National Institute of Virology · INWorld Health Organization · CHWorld Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia · IN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & objectives: Polio, measles, rubella, influenza and rotavirus surveillance programmes are of great public health importance globally. Virus isolation using cell culture is an integral part of such programmes. Possibility of unintended isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical specimens processed in biosafety level-2 (BSL-2) laboratories during the above-mentioned surveillance programmes, cannot be ruled out. The present study was conducted to assess the susceptibility of different cell lines to SARS-CoV-2 used in these programmes. Methods: Replication of SARS-CoV-2 was studied in RD and L20B, Vero/hSLAM, MA-104 and Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell lines, used for the isolation of polio, measles, rubella, rotavirus and influenza viruses, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 at 0.01 multiplicity of infection was inoculated and the viral growth was assessed by observation of cytopathic effects followed by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Vero CCL-81 cell line was used as a positive control. Results: SARS-CoV-2 replicated in Vero/hSLAM, and MA-104 cells, whereas it did not replicate in L20B, RD and MDCK cells. Vero/hSLAM, and Vero CCL-81 showed rounding, degeneration and detachment of cells; MA-104 cells also showed syncytia formation. In qRT-PCR, Vero/hSLAM and MA-104 showed 10 Interpretation & conclusions: Replication of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM and MA-104 underscores the possibility of its unintended isolation during surveillance procedures aiming to isolate measles, rubella and rotavirus. This could result in accidental exposure to high titres of SARS-CoV-2, which can result in laboratory acquired infections and community risk, highlighting the need for revisiting biosafety measures in public health laboratories.

Indexed as

COVID-19MeaslesPoliomyelitisRubellaAnimalsCell LineChlorocebus aethiopsContainment of BiohazardsDogsPublic Health SurveillanceSARS-CoV-2Vero CellsBiosafetycell linesCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2surveillancevirus replication

Identifiers

PMID35859439
PMCPMC9552391
OpenAlexW4283772697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.