Archives of Virology

, Volume 161, Issue 6, pp 1455–1467 | Cite as

Stability, biophysical properties and effect of ultracentrifugation and diafiltration on measles virus and mumps virus

  • Dora SvibenEmail author
  • Dubravko Forčić
  • Tihana Kurtović
  • Beata Halassy
  • Marija Brgles
Original Article


Measles virus and mumps virus (MeV and MuV) are enveloped RNA viruses used for production of live attenuated vaccines for prophylaxis of measles and mumps disease, respectively. For biotechnological production of and basic research on these viruses, the preparation of highly purified and infectious viruses is a prerequisite, and to meet that aim, knowledge of their stability and biophysical properties is crucial. Our goal was to carry out a detailed investigation of the stability of MeV and MuV under various pH, temperature, shear stress, filtration and storage conditions, as well as to evaluate two commonly used purification techniques, ultracentrifugation and diafiltration, with regard to their efficiency and effect on virus properties. Virus titers were estimated by CCID50 assay, particle size and concentration were measured by Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) measurements, and the host cell protein content was determined by ELISA. The results demonstrated the stability of MuV and MeV at pH <9 and above pH 4 and 5, respectively, and aggregation was observed at pH >9. Storage without stabilizer did not result in structural changes, but the reduction in infectivity after 24 hours was significant at +37 °C. Vortexing of the viruses resulted in significant particle degradation, leading to lower virus titers, whereas pipetting had much less impact on virus viability. Diafiltration resulted in higher recovery of both total and infectious virus particles than ultracentrifugation. These results provide important data for research on all upstream and downstream processes on these two viruses regarding biotechnological production and basic research.


Virus Particle Vero Cell Measle Virus Virus Suspension Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Mrs. Renata Jug for her assistance in the experimental procedures. This study was funded by the Croatian Science Foundation (grant number 8193 to MB).

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Croatian Science Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

705_2016_2801_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (353 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 353 kb)


  1. 1.
    Lamb RA, Parks GD (2013) Paramixoviridae. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM (eds) Fields Virol, 6th edn. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 957–995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K (2007) Analysis of morphology and infectivity of measles virus particles. Bull Osaka Med Coll 53:107–114Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiss K, Salzig D, Röder Y et al (2013) Influence of process conditions on measles virus stability. Am J Biochem Biotechnol 9:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ray BG, Swain RH (1954) An investigation of the mumps virus by electron microscopy. J Pathol Bacteriol 67:247–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duc-Nguyen H, Rosenblum EN (1967) Immuno-electron microscopy of the morphogenesis of mumps virus. J Virol 1:415–429PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bose S, Song AS, Jardetzky TS, Lamb RA (2014) Fusion activation through attachment protein stalk domains indicates a conserved core mechanism of paramyxovirus entry into cells. J Virol 88:3925–3941CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Talekar A, Moscona A, Porotto M (2013) Measles virus fusion machinery activated by sialic acid binding globular domain. J Virol 87:13619–13627CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss K, Salzig D, Mühlebach MD et al (2012) Key parameters of measles virus production for oncolytic virotherapy. Am J Biochem Biotechnol 8:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Black FL (1959) Growth and stability of measles virus. Virology 7:184–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kohn A, Yassky D (1962) Growth of measles virus in KB cells. Virology 17:157–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rapp F, Butel JS, Wallis C (1965) Protection of measles virus by sulfate ions against thermal inactivation. J Bacteriol 90:132–135PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waterson AP, Cruickshank JG, Laurence GD, Kanarek AD (1961) The nature of measles virus. Virology 15:379–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weil ML, Beard D, Sharp DG, Beard JW (1948) Purification, pH stability and culture of the mumps virus. J Immunol 60:561–582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de las Mercedes Segura M, Kamen A, Garnier A (2006) Downstream processing of oncoretroviral and lentiviral gene therapy vectors. Biotechnol Adv 24:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodrigues T, Carrondo MJT, Alves PM, Cruz PE (2007) Purification of retroviral vectors for clinical application: Biological implications and technological challenges. J Biotechnol 127:520–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burns JC, Friedmann T, Driever W et al (1993) Vesicular stomatitis virus G glycoprotein pseudotyped retroviral vectors: concentration to very high titer and efficient gene transfer into mammalian and nonmammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8033–8037CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beyer WR, Westphal M, Ostertag W, von Laer D (2002) Oncoretrovirus and lentivirus vectors pseudotyped with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus glycoprotein: generation, concentration, and broad host range. J Virol 76:1488–1495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gatlin J, Melkus MW, Padgett A et al (2001) Engraftment of NOD/SCID mice with human CD34(+) cells transduced by concentrated oncoretroviral vector particles pseudotyped with the feline endogenous retrovirus (RD114) envelope protein. J Virol 75:9995–9999CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reiser J (2000) Production and concentration of pseudotyped HIV-1-based gene transfer vectors. Gene Ther 7:910–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Njayou M, Quash G (1991) Purification of measles virus by affinity chromatography and by ultracentrifugation: a comparative study. J Virol Methods 32:67–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nestola P, Peixoto C, Silva RRJS et al. (2015) Improved virus purification processes for vaccines and gene therapy. Biotechnol Bioeng 112:843–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nayak DP, Lehmann S, Reichl U (2005) Downstream processing of MDCK cell-derived equine influenza virus. J Chromatogr B 823:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paul RW, Morris DAN, Hess BW et al (1993) Increased viral titer through concentration of viral harvests from retroviral packaging lines. Hum Gene Ther 4:609–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller DL, Meikle PJ, Anson DS (1996) A rapid and efficient method for concentration of small volumes of retroviral supernatant. Nucleic Acids Res 24:1576–1577CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Segura MM, Puig M, Monfar M, Chillón M (2012) Chromatography purification of canine adenoviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther Methods 23:182–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nehring D, Poertner R, Schweizer M et al (2009) Integrated inline filtration: a method to produce highly concentrated retroviral vector titer supernatant. Desalination 245:614–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kotani H, Newton PB, Zhang S et al (1994) Improved methods of retroviral vector transduction and production for gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther 5:19–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vicente T, Peixoto C, Carrondo MJT, Alves PM (2009) Purification of recombinant baculoviruses for gene therapy using membrane processes. Gene Ther 16:766–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Makino M, Ishikawa G, Yamaguchi K et al (1994) Concentration of live retrovirus with a regenerated cellulose hollow fiber, BMM. Arch Virol 139:87–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kuiper M, Sanches RM, Walford JA, Slater NKH (2002) Purification of a functional gene therapy vector derived from moloney murine leukaemia virus using membrane filtration and ceramic hydroxyapatite chromatography. Biotechnol Bioeng 80:445–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maranga L, Rueda P, Antonis A et al (2002) Large scale production and downstream processing of a recombinant porcine parvovirus vaccine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papanikolaou E, Kontostathi G, Drakopoulou E et al (2013) Characterization and comparative performance of lentiviral vector preparations concentrated by either one-step ultrafiltration or ultracentrifugation. Virus Res 175:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carr B, Wright M (2012) Nanoparticle tracking analysis: a review of applications and usage 2010–2012. Nanosight Ltd, pp 1–193Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Filipe V, Hawe A, Jiskoot W (2010) Critical evaluation of nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) by NanoSight for the measurement of nanoparticles and protein aggregates. Pharm Res 27:796–810CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Forcic D, Košutić-Gulija T, Šantak M et al (2010) Comparisons of mumps virus potency estimates obtained by 50 % cell culture infective dose assay and plaque assay. Vaccine 28:1887–1892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    World Health Organization (1997) Live measles virus vaccine. In: Manual of laboratory methods. Document WHO/VSQ/97.04. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 79–82Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dean RB, Dixon WJ (1951) Simplified statistics for small numbers of observations. Anal Chem 23:636–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hviid A, Rubin S, Mühlemann K (2008) Mumps. Lancet 371:932–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kissmann J, Ausar SF, Rudolph A et al (2008) Stabilization of measles virus for vaccine formulation. Hum Vaccin 4:350–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weil ML, Beard D, Beard JW (1948) pH stability, response to antibiotics and factors influencing egg-culture of mumps virus. Exp Biol Med 68:308–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leprat R, Aymard M (1979) Selective inactivation of hemagglutinin and neuraminidase on mumps virus. Arch Virol 61:273–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rani S, Gogoi P, Kumar S (2014) Spectrum of newcastle disease virus stability in gradients of temperature and pH. Biologicals 42:351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moses HE, Brandly CA, Jones EE (1947) The pH stability of viruses of Newcastle disease and fowl plague. Science 105:477–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tolba MK, Eskarous JK (1959) pH-stability patterns of some strains of Newcastle disease and fowl-plague viruses. Arch Microbiol 34:333–338Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    San Román K, Villar E, Munoz-Barroso I (1999) Acidic pH enhancement of the fusion of Newcastle disease virus with cultured cells. Virology 260:329–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schlehuber LD, McFadyen IJ, Shu Y et al (2011) Towards ambient temperature-stable vaccines: the identification of thermally stabilizing liquid formulations for measles virus using an innovative high-throughput infectivity assay. Vaccine 29:5031–5039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barme M (1985) Stabilizing agents for live viruses for preparing vaccines, and stabilized vaccines containing said stabilized agents. US patent: available at Accessed 29 Sept 2015
  48. 48.
    Lange C, Rudolph R (2009) Suppression of protein aggregation by L-arginine. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 10:408–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ejima D, Yumioka R, Arakawa T, Tsumoto K (2005) Arginine as an effective additive in gel permeation chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1094:49–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Arakawa T, Philo JS, Tsumoto K et al (2004) Elution of antibodies from a protein-A column by aqueous arginine solutions. Protein Expr Purif 36:244–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Katakam M, Bell LN, Banga AK (1995) Effect of surfactants on the physical stability of recombinant human growth hormone. J Pharm Sci 84:713–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Beauséjour Y, Tremblay MJ (2004) Interaction between the cytoplasmic domain of ICAM-1 and Pr55 Gag leads to acquisition of host ICAM-1 by human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol 78:11916–11925CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Biswas M, Johnson JB, Kumar SRP et al (2012) Incorporation of host complement regulatory proteins into Newcastle disease virus enhances complement evasion. J Virol 86:12708–12716CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cantin R, Méthot S, Tremblay MJ (2005) Plunder and stowaways: incorporation of cellular proteins by enveloped viruses. J Virol 79:6577–6587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Franke EK, Yuan HE, Luban J (1994) Specific incorporation of cyclophilin A into HIV-1 virions. Nature 372:359–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Moyer SA, Baker SC, Horikami SM (1990) Host cell proteins required for measles virus reproduction. J Gen Virol 71:775–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shaw ML, Stone KL, Colangelo CM et al (2008) Cellular proteins in influenza virus particles. PLoS Pathog 4:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lotfian P, Levy MS, Coffin RS et al (2003) Impact of process conditions on the centrifugal recovery of a disabled herpes simplex virus. Biotechnol Prog 19:209–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zimmermann K, Scheibe O, Kocourek A et al (2011) Highly efficient concentration of lenti- and retroviral vector preparations by membrane adsorbers and ultrafiltration. BMC Biotechnol 11:55–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nestola P, Martins DL, Peixoto C et al (2014) Evaluation of novel large cut-off ultrafiltration membranes for adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5) concentration. PLoS One 9:e115802CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research and Knowledge Transfer in BiotechnologyUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for Viral Immunology and Vaccines, CERVirVacZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations