Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2002, p. 233-238, Vol. 40, No. 1
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.1.233-238.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Servizio di Virologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, 27100 Pavia, Italy
Received 9 July 2001/ Returned for modification 13 September 2001/ Accepted 8 October 2001
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Recently, an in vitro model was developed in our laboratory showing that PBL from healthy blood donors may be infected following coculture with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) or human embryonic lung fibroblasts (HELF) infected with clinical isolates and may disseminate the infection to both uninfected cell types (1, 7). The mechanism underlying transfer of infectious virus and viral products from infected cells to PBL and from infected PBL to uninfected cells has been partly clarified, while the viral gene(s) involved in this process is now under investigation.
In the present study, the differential recovery of HCMV from PBL in HUVEC and HELF was investigated in parallel with clinical samples from other sources, documenting the fact that PBL are usually required for HCMV primary isolation in HUVEC. However, HCMV strains recovered only from HELF can be readily adapted to growth in HUVEC following inoculation with either PBL infected in vitro or HELF-derived (either cell-associated or cell-free) HCMV strains upon primary isolation, thus documenting the fact that growth in HUVEC is likely to depend on in vitro selection of PBL-tropic and HUVEC-tropic HCMV variants.
|
|
|---|
Clinical samples. Altogether, 180 clinical samples were inoculated in parallel onto HUVEC and HELF monolayers. The specimens examined included 150 buffy coat samples from immunocompromised patients (AIDS patients and heart, lung, and bone marrow transplant recipients); 21 urine samples, 11 of which were from five congenitally HCMV-infected newborns; six throat washes, three of which were from subjects excreting virus with saliva; and three amniotic fluid samples from pregnant women, two of which were from women transmitting virus to the fetus during primary HCMV infection.
HCMV isolation in HUVEC and HELF. Buffy coat samples were obtained by sedimentation of 5.0 ml of heparinized blood at 37°C for 30 min. The supernatant was collected and centrifuged at 700 x g. The cell pellet was collected, and contaminating erythrocytes were removed by hypotonic lysis with 0.8% ammonium chloride. Following centrifugation at 700 x g and washings with phosphate-buffered saline, the final pellet was resuspended in Earle minimum essential medium supplemented with 2% fetal calf serum and the PBL were counted. HUVEC and HELF monolayers grown in shell vials were inoculated with 2 x 105 PBL or 100 µl of urine, throat washes, or amniotic fluid samples and centrifuged at room temperature for 45 min at 600 x g.
Early and late identification of HCMV isolates in HUVEC. Early identification of HCMV isolates was achieved by staining shell vial cell cultures 24 to 48 h postinfection (p.i.) with a monoclonal antibody reactive to the major immediate-early (IE) protein p72 (nuclear staining) by the indirect immunofluorescence technique (2). In addition, some shell vial cultures were incubated for 4 to 7 days and then stained with either a monoclonal antibody to the late viral glycoprotein B (gB), which was kindly provided by L. Pereira (University of CaliforniaSan Francisco) and gave a cytoplasmic staining mostly localized to the Golgi area, or a combination of both p72- and gB-specific monoclonal antibodies. HCMV p72- or gB-positive HUVEC and HELF were counted, and the numbers were recorded.
Adaptation to growth in HUVEC of HCMV strains recovered in HELF. Three approaches were used to adapt the HCMV strains recovered in HELF from clinical specimens other than buffy coat to growth in HUVEC. The first was to mix infected HELF with uninfected HUVEC at a ratio of 1:2 and then propagate the infected cell mixture onto uninfected HUVEC at a ratio of 1:2 once weekly for 5 weeks. The infected cell cultures were then sonicated to remove infected HELF, and cell-free virus was inoculated onto fresh HUVEC. Finally, the virus was propagated as cell-associated preparations till passage 10. As reported previously, if more than 50% of HUVEC were infected at passage 10, the virus strain was considered HUVEC adapted (8). The second approach was to sonicate HCMV-infected HELF one or a few passages after virus recovery and directly infect HUVEC with cell-free virus following centrifugation at 600 x g for 45 min. Subsequent passages involved cocultivation of infected and uninfected HUVEC at a 1:2 ratio. With this approach, adaptation to HUVEC was often readily achieved within 5 passages. Finally, the third approach consisted of coculturing PBL from healthy blood donors and HELF infected with a primary HCMV isolate from a clinical sample other than buffy coat and then infecting HUVEC (and HELF, for comparison) with PBL infected in vitro. Thus, with the last approach, virus recovery in HUVEC from PBL was artificially reproduced in vitro.
|
|
|---|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Efficiency of HUVEC and HELF cultures for HCMV rapid recovery from 180 clinical samples
|
In more detail, when the differential efficiency in HCMV recovery was considered not only qualitatively but quantitatively, a striking difference was observed between the two cell substrates (Table 2). The median numbers of p72-positive cells of the 19 buffy coat samples positive for HCMV recovery on HUVEC and of the 20 buffy coat samples positive on HELF were comparable (2 [range, 1 to 58] on HUVEC and 4 [range, 1 to 175] on HELF). Buffy coat samples positive on either cell type contained only a very low number of infectious virus particles, and the restriction of virus isolation to a single cell substrate was likely due to a stochastic effect (Table 2).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Median number of HCMV p72-positive cells following inoculation of the same clinical samples onto the two cell substrates
|
![]() View larger version (56K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Inoculation of urine sample (100 µl) from a congenitally HCMV-infected newborn in parallel onto HELF (A) and HUVEC (B to D). In contrast to an exceedingly high number of p72-positive HELF in panel A (nuclear staining), a single positive cell is seen in panel B. However, these very rare cells also progress to late phases of virus replication, as shown by the presence of gB (cytoplasmic staining) in panel C 96 h p.i. and a small plaque in panel D 7 days p.i. In panels E (HELF) and F (HUVEC), comparable numbers of p72-positive cells (n = 7) are shown, following inoculation of PBL cocultured with HELF infected with the same virus strain upon primary isolation. When infection is mediated by cocultured PBL, the numbers of infected cells on the two cell systems are comparable. Immunofluorescence staining with p72-specific monoclonal antibodies (A, B, E, and F) and with both p72- and gB-specific monoclonal antibodies (C and D) was used to detect both IE and late viral antigens.
|
Progression from IE to late phases of replication of HCMV primary isolates on HUVEC. Five buffy coat samples positive for HCMV isolation on HUVEC at 24 h p.i. were stained for gB at 96 and 168 h p.i. As a rule, nearly 100% of IE-protein-positive HUVEC progressed to gB-positive cells (96 h) and to plaques (168 h). Thus, HUVEC appeared to be highly permissive to HCMV on primary isolation when virus was transmitted by PBL. The same finding, i.e., progression to late phases of virus replication and to plaques, was observed for each of the very few p72-positive HUVEC following inoculation of clinical samples other than buffy coat and, specifically, urine samples containing very large amounts of infectious virus as detected on HELF (Fig. 1C and D).
Adaptation to growth on HUVEC of non-endothelial-cell-tropic HCMV strains following transfer to PBL. All non-endothelial-cell-tropic HCMV strains recovered on HELF from clinical samples other than buffy coats could be promptly adapted to growth on HUVEC following coculture of PBL from healthy donors with HELF infected with the relevant strain and then inoculation of infected PBL onto uninfected HUVEC (Fig. 2, option 3). When the same number of PBL carrying infectious virus was inoculated in parallel onto HUVEC and HELF, comparable numbers of infected cells or plaques were observed in the two cell systems (Fig. 1E and F).
![]() View larger version (21K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Diagram of three methods of adaptation to growth in HUVEC of HCMV strains recovered in HELF from clinical samples other than buffy coat. Passages indicate propagation of cell-associated virus. CPE, cytopathic effect.
|
![]() View larger version (51K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Comparative growth on HUVEC (A, C, and E) and HELF (B, D, and F) of an HCMV strain recovered on HUVEC (A) and HELF (B) from buffy coat and inoculated as cell-free virus onto both cell systems after 10 (C and D) and 20 (E and F) passages on HUVEC. Immunofluorescence staining with p72-specific monoclonal antibody (A and B) and with both p72-specific (nuclear staining) and gB-specific (cytoplasmic staining) monoclonal antibodies (C to F) was performed. Virus spread to contiguous cells becomes more efficient on HELF than on HUVEC between passages 10 and 20, whereas on HUVEC the efficiency of spreading appears unchanged.
|
![]() View larger version (63K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Progressive adaptation to growth on HUVEC of a cell-associated HCMV strain originally recovered on HELF. (A) Passage 2 (two small plaques); (B) passage 4 and (C) passage 6 (large plaques); (D) passage 10, following sonication at passage 6 (lower magnification to show that the great majority of the cell monolayer is infected). Immunofluorescence staining with a combination of p72-specific (nuclear staining) and gB-specific (cytoplasmic staining) monoclonal antibodies was performed.
|
|
|
|---|
In light of the present knowledge of the interaction of PBL, whether polymorphonuclear (PMN) leukocytes (4, 7) or monocytes (10), and HUVEC, HCMV can be transmitted to HUVEC only by leukocytes. In fact, adhesion of PMN leukocytes to HUVEC occurs through interaction of CD18 molecules (integrins) on the surfaces of leukocytes and ICAM-1 molecules on the surfaces of HUVEC. When PMN leukocytes carry infectious virus, adhesion is followed by a series of microfusion events between the two adhering cells, with transfer of infectious virus from PMN leukocytes to HUVEC (1). Since HCMV circulates in peripheral blood of immunocompromised patients and immunocompetent subjects during primary infection inside leukocytes, and specifically PMN leukocytes, HCMV recovery on HUVEC must be mediated by leukocytes. This appears to be indirectly confirmed by the lack of HCMV isolation on HUVEC from clinical samples other than blood. Since the clinical samples other than blood tested in this study all contained epithelial cells, the lack of HCMV recovery on HUVEC from these samples leads to the assumption that epithelial cells, such as urinary, amniotic, or pharyngeal cells, do not possess the adhesion molecules required to establish close contacts with HUVEC. Thus, epithelial cells would be unable to adhere to HUVEC and to transfer virus to them.
In addition, the cell-free virus present in clinical samples other than blood was not able to infect HUVEC, whereas the infection was successful when virus was propagated from HELF (using either cell-free or cell-associated virus) to HUVEC. This implies that the cell-free virus in these samples is somehow complexed with antibody or nonantibody viral inhibitors, hindering its adsorption to HUVEC but not to HELF. In addition, all these HCMV strains could be readily transmitted to and propagated on HUVEC if they were first transferred to leukocytes from infected HELF and then from infected leukocytes to HUVEC.
Thus far, PMN tropism and endothelial cell tropism have been found to be consistently associated (8). However, both properties have been shown to be peculiar to clinical HCMV isolates and missing in reference HCMV strains, such as AD169, Towne, Davis, and even Toledo (1, 7), or in HCMV variants selected during propagation of clinical isolates on HELF (8). These variants, not detected upon primary isolation, were identified between passages 10 and 50 on HELF based on loss of both PMN and endothelial cell tropism. In this study, the finding that the numbers of infectious foci were comparable on HUVEC and HELF with blood samples and enormously lower on HUVEC than on HELF for samples from other sources suggests that endothelial-cell-tropic variants were selected on HUVEC. According to this hypothesis, non-endothelial-cell-tropic variants were unable to grow on HUVEC. This conclusion appears to be confirmed by the adaptation to growth on HUVEC of apparently non-endothelial-cell-tropic HCMV strains following transfer to PBL.
In conclusion, we believe that primary recovery of HCMV on HUVEC from blood may be considered as a marker of both endothelial cell tropism and HCMV dissemination. This appears to be indirectly confirmed by the consistent lack of recovery of the Towne vaccine strain from the blood of vaccinated individuals (6).
This work was partially supported by Ministero della Sanità, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, III Progetto Nazionale AIDS, grant no. 50C.12; Ricerca Finalizzata grant no. 820RFM99/01 and 820RFM95/01; and Ricerca Corrente IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, grant no. 80206.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»