Reply to Kerkhove et al and Oh

Reply to Kerkhove et al and Oh TO THE EDITOR—We appreciate the valu- able comments of Kerkhove et al [1] and Oh [2] on our recent study [3]. The purpose of our immunofluorescence assay was to confirm the presence of rep- licating virus in cultures of the air and in surface samples. As Oh points out, com- pared with cells infected with the clinical isolate, fewer cells infected with the envi- ronmental sample showed positive viral antigen detection results after prolonged incubation. This finding can be explained by the difference in the number of viable virus particles in the inocula used; the clinical isolate, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERSCoV)/ Korea/Korea National Institute of Health (KNIH)/002_05_2015, was previously adapted in Vero cells, with viral yields of >1.4 × 10 plaque-forming units/mL, whereas the environmental isolates were used immediately after their collection from the air and environmental surfaces. Characterizing the replication capabilities of the clinical and environmental isolates would require additional studies directly comparing their replication kinetics in cells infected with each isolate at the same multiplicity of infection. Regarding the concern about the se- quence differences between the spike genes of the 19 environmental isolates, we found that their similarities ranged from 97% to 100% (Supplementary http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical Infectious Diseases Oxford University Press

Reply to Kerkhove et al and Oh

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/reply-to-kerkhove-et-al-and-oh-jRqdykPNwq
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
1058-4838
eISSN
1537-6591
DOI
10.1093/cid/ciw480
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

TO THE EDITOR—We appreciate the valu- able comments of Kerkhove et al [1] and Oh [2] on our recent study [3]. The purpose of our immunofluorescence assay was to confirm the presence of rep- licating virus in cultures of the air and in surface samples. As Oh points out, com- pared with cells infected with the clinical isolate, fewer cells infected with the envi- ronmental sample showed positive viral antigen detection results after prolonged incubation. This finding can be explained by the difference in the number of viable virus particles in the inocula used; the clinical isolate, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERSCoV)/ Korea/Korea National Institute of Health (KNIH)/002_05_2015, was previously adapted in Vero cells, with viral yields of >1.4 × 10 plaque-forming units/mL, whereas the environmental isolates were used immediately after their collection from the air and environmental surfaces. Characterizing the replication capabilities of the clinical and environmental isolates would require additional studies directly comparing their replication kinetics in cells infected with each isolate at the same multiplicity of infection. Regarding the concern about the se- quence differences between the spike genes of the 19 environmental isolates, we found that their similarities ranged from 97% to 100% (Supplementary

Journal

Clinical Infectious DiseasesOxford University Press

Published: Oct 15, 2016

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off