经典方法与LaSRT法测定绿色荧光蛋白标记重组病毒滴度的研究

Large-scale real-time titration of green-fluorescence-protein-marked recombinant retrovirus: comparison with standard titration method]

OBJECTIVE: To compare large-scale real-time titration method (LaSRT) with standard titration method by flow cytometry (FACS) for determining the titers of green-fluorescence-protein (GFP)-marked recombinant retrovirus. METHODS: (1) Standard titration method: NIH3T3 cells were inoculated at 2x10(5) /well in 6-well plate, and after cell culture for 12 h, 0.5 ml, 50 microl and 5 microl GFP-marked recombinant retrovirus (n=3) were respectively used to infect the cells, with the final concentration of polybrene being 8 microg/ml. Forty-eight hours later, the cells were treated with trypsin and assayed for the positive rate of GFP by means of FACS. When the positive rate was lower than 10%, the titer was calculated according to the equation: virus titer (TU/ml) =2x10(5)xGFP positive rate/volume of virus stock solution used. (2) LaSRT method: The cells were inoculated at 5,000 cells/well in a 96-well plate, and after cell culture for 12 h, 90 microl/well complete culture medium was used with 8 microg/ml polybrene and 10% newborn bovine serum, 10 microl virus was added into the first well, and ten-fold dilution of the previous virus-containing solution was performed before the virus was added into the next well (8 wells in each group, altogether 3 groups). Forty-eight hours later, inverted fluorescence microscope was used to observe the fluorescence-positive cells in each well. The virus titer was calculated according to the equation: virus titer (TU/ml) =mx10(n+1), where n is the serial number of the reference well, and m the number of positive cells. (3) LaSRT was used to study the influence of freezing/thawing on the titers of recombinant retroviruses. RESULTS: The virus titer obtained with standard method by FACS was (1.54+/-0.38)x10(6) TU/ml, and that of LaSRT was (1.33+/-0.57)x10(6) TU/ml (P>0.05). After one cycle of freezing/thawing, the virus titer dropped to (18.1+/-9.9)% (n=7). CONCLUSION: LaSRT is more rapid and convenient as well as easier to determine the virus titer compared with standard method, and no significant difference is found between the two titration methods.