Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:55:05.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of UK 2054 on the multiplication of influenza viruses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. D. Barry  and
Patricia Davies
R. D. Barry
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge
Patricia Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The isoquinoline compound UK 2054 prevents the uptake of influenza virus by susceptible cells. Pre-incubation of virus particles with 500μg./ml. UK 2054 at 37°C. for 2 hr. does not reduce virus infectivity. Host cells vary in their responsiveness to the inhibitory effect of UK 2054; virus multiplication is inhibited in chick allantoic cells by lower concentrations than those required to inhibit virus growth in chick embryo fibroblasts. The effectiveness of UK 2054 is reduced by the presence of serum.

It is concluded that inhibition of influenza virus multiplication by UK2054 might result from interaction of the inhibitor with both virus and cells. Any direct combination between inhibitor and virus is completely reversible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 151 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

References

Barry, R. D. (1961). The multiplication of influenza virus. I. The formation of incomplete virus. Virology 14, 389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, R. D., Ives, D. R. & Cruickshank, J. G. (1962). Participation of deoxyribonucleic acid in the multiplication of influenza virus. Nature, London 194, 1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beare, A. S., Bynoe, M. L. & Tyrrell, D. A. J. (1968). Prophylaxis of influenza with a synthetic isoquinoline. Lancet i, 843.Google Scholar
Brammer, K. W., McDonald, C. R. & Tute, M. S. (1968). Antiviral properties of 1-Phenoxy-methyl-3,4-Dihydro and 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydroisoquinolines. Nature, London 219, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. & Graham, D. M. (1954). The production of incomplete virus particles among influenza strains: experiments in eggs. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 60.Google Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958). An improved assay for the infectivity of influenza viruses. Journal of Hygiene 56, 151.Google Scholar
Foulton, F. & Armitage, P. (1951). Surviving tissue suspensions for influenza virus titrations. Journal of Hygiene 49, 247.Google Scholar
Hobson, D., Flockton, H. I. & Gregory, M. G. (1969). The inhibitory activity of an isoquinoline derivative on growth of an influenza A virus in tissue culture. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 50, 494.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. E., Neumayer, E. M., Haff, R. F. & Goldsby, R. A. (1965). Mode of action of the antiviral activity of amantadine in tissue culture. Journal of Bacteriology 90, 623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumayer, E. M., Haff, R. T. & Hoffman, C. E. (1965). Antiviral activity of amantadine hydrochloride in tissue culture and in ovo. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 119, 393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed