Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 25, 2026

Virus Propagation and Cell-Based Colorimetric Quantification
Published on: April 7, 2023
Comparison of cell-based and PCR-based assays as methods for measuring infectivity of Tulane virus
Lei Shan1, David Yang1, Dapeng Wang2
1Produce Safety and Microbiology Research Unit, Western Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA 94710, USA.
Abstract:
In this study, we used Tulane virus (TV) as a surrogate for HuNoV to evaluate for correlation between two cell-based assays and three PCR-based assays. Specifically, the cell-based plaque and TCID50 assays measure for infectious virus particles, while the PCR-based RNase exposure, porcine gastric mucin in-situ-capture qRT-PCR (PGM-ISC-qRT-PCR), and antibody in-situ-capture qRT-PCR (Ab-ISC-qRT-PCR) assays measure for an amplicon within encapsidated viral genome. Ten batches of viral stocks ranging from 3.41 × 10(5) to 6.67 × 10(6) plaque forming units (PFUs) were used for side by side comparison with PFU as a reference. The results indicate that one PFU was equivalent to 6.69 ± 2.34 TCID50 units, 9.75 ± 10.87 RNase-untreated genomic copies (GCs), 2.87 ± 3.05 RNase-treated GCs, 0.07 ± 0.07 PGM-ISC-qRT-PCR GCs, and 0.52 ± 0.39 Ab-ISC-qRT-PCR GCs. We observed that while the cell-based assays were consistent with each other, the TCID50 assay was more sensitive than the plaque assay. In contrast, the PCR-based assays were not always consistent with the cell-based assays. The very high variations in GCs as measured by both ISC-RT-qPCR assays made them difficult to correlate against the relatively small variations (<20-fold) in the PFUs or TCID50 units as measured by the cell-based assays.

