Lawrence O. Mancini

Cultivation of avian encephalomyelitis virus in vitro. 2. In chick embryo fibroblastic cell culture.

virus N (Dinter, 1949). Bul. Inst. Sierter Milanese 45, 255-272, 1966. 22. Roberts, D. H. The isolation of an influenza A virus and a mycoplasma associated with duck sinusitis. Vet. Record 76, 470-473, 1964. 23. Shope, R. E. The swine lungworm as a reservoir and intermediate host for swine influenza virus. J. Exptl. Med. 102, 567-572, 1955. 24. Simmins, G. B., and F. D. Asplin (1956). Cit. by Roberts, 1964. 25. Simmons, J. A., and C. J. Gentzkow. Laboratory methods of the United States Army. 6th ed., pp. 862, 1955. Lea and Febiger.

Research Note: Cultivation of Avian Encephalomyelitis Virus in Chicken Embryo Kidney Cell Culture

3. Miyamae, Takeo, and H. E. Adler. Comparative studies on immunogenicity of Arizona (7:1,7,8) adjuvant bacterins in mice and turkeys. Avian Dis. 11:3, 380-392, 1967. 4. Sato, G., and H. E. Adler. A study on the efficacy of Arizona group infections. Avian Dis. 10, 247-254, 1966. 5. Sato, G., and H. E. Adler. Serologic tests for Arizona group infections. Avian Dis. 10, 247-254, 1966. 6. Skarnes, R. C., and D. W. Watson. Antimicrobial factors of normal tissue fluids. Bact. Rev. 21, 237 ff, 1957. 7. Viaene, N., A. Devos, and M. Staelens. (1965) Onderzoek nar het mechanisme van de eioverdraging dij bakterielle infektis. L. Dovierenting met Pseudomonas fluorescens en S. pullorum. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijschrift 34, 385-391.

Tumor induction in hamsters inoculated with an avian adenovirus (CELO)

The chicken-embryo-lethal-orphan (CELO) virus, a latent virus of eggs (8), produces tumors when inoculated into the subcutaneous tissues of hamsters (4). This study was designed to determine whether t reatment of the virus prior to inoculation and the method of inoculation could affect the time and percentage of tumor induction. Newborn hamsters were inoculated with partially purified CELO virus (101~176 ELDso/ml), either untreated, irradiated (2), or mixed with 10% chicken embryo extract (3), tumor extract (6), or 10% inositol (1, 7). An inoculum of 0.1 ml was administered intradermally (i.d.) or subcutaneously (s.c.) or 0.02 ml intracranially (i.e.) in 4 injections at different sites (multiple injections) or in one injection. Results from these inoculations are shown in Table 1. Hamsters inoculated i.e. with CELO virus alone, or in combination with chicken embryo extract, produced ependymomas in 33% and 22% of the animals, respectively, in 6 to 14 weeks. These tumors were usually detectable only under histological examination (5). Hamsters inoculated s.c. with CELO virus treated with chicken embryo extract developed fibrosarcomas in 42% of the animals starting 9 weeks after infection. These latter tumors were easily excised surgically and greatly facilitated studies pertaining to the tumorigenic effects of CELO virus. The remainder of the inoculation procedures either produced no tumors or induced tumors at a low rate and usually over a longer t ime interval. Therefore , a greater number of tumors developed more rapidly when the virus was injected i.e. or when treated with chicken embryo extract before being injected s.c.

Growth of Chicken-Embryo-Lethal-Orphan (CELO) Virus in Chicken Embryo Neuroglial and Chicken Embryo Fibroblastic Cell Cultures

The chicken-embryo-lethal-orphan (CELO) virus is an avian adenovirus that is frequently endogenous in chicken eggs. It was first reported by Yates et al. (6,7), and characterized by Yates in 1960 (8). To date the only successful means of propagating this virus in vitro has been in chicken embryo kidney cell cultures (1). This report describes the growth of CELO virus in both chicken embryo neuroglial and chicken embryo fibroblastic monolayer cell cultures.

Hamster tumors induced by type I avian adenovirus (CELO). I. Histopathology and neoantigen of virus-induced and transplanted tumors.

Hamster tumors induced either by CELO virus or by transplants of CELO virus-induced tumors were studied grossly, histologically and by immunofluorescence. Regardless of the material used for induction, the histological pictures were similar. All tumors were fibrosarcomas showing varying degrees of differentiation. However, slight variations were noted between virus-induced and transplanted tumors. These included increased cellular pleomorphism with prominent bizarre giant cells in the virus-induced tumors, and increased mitotic activity in the transplants. In both types of tumors, immunofluorescence occurred within the cytoplasm at the nuclear envelope. Viral antigen was not demonstrable by immunofluorescence.