UV radiation sensitivity of bacteriophage PhiX174 - A potential surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 in terms of radiation inactivation

Laura Weyersberg; Florian Sommerfeld; Petra Vatter; Martin Hessling; Laura Weyersberg; Florian Sommerfeld; Petra Vatter; Martin Hessling

doi:10.3934/microbiol.2023023

AIMS Microbiology

2023, Volume 9, Issue 3: 431-443. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023023

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

UV radiation sensitivity of bacteriophage PhiX174 - A potential surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 in terms of radiation inactivation

Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Department of Medical Engineering and Mechatronics, Biotech-Lab, Albert Einstein-Allee 55, D-89081 Ulm, Germany

Received: 17 March 2023 Revised: 16 April 2023 Accepted: 24 April 2023 Published: 05 May 2023

To minimize health risks, surrogates are often employed to reduce experiments with pathogenic microorganisms and the associated health risk. Due to structural similarities between the enveloped RNA-viruses SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6, the latter has been established as a nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate for many applications. However, large discrepancies in the UV log-reduction doses between SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6 necessitate the search for a better surrogate for UV inactivation applications. A literature study provided the bacteriophage PhiX174 as a potentially more suitable nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate candidate. In irradiation experiments, the sensitivity of PhiX174 was investigated upon exposure to UV radiation of wavelengths 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC), 302 nm (broad-band UVB), 311 nm (narrow-band UVB) and 366 nm (UVA) using a plaque assay. The determined log-reduction doses for PhiX174 were 1.3 mJ/cm² @ 222 nm, 5 mJ/cm² @ 254 nm, 17.9 mJ/cm² @ 302 nm, 625 mJ/cm² @ 311 nm and 42.5 J/cm² @ 366 nm. The comparison of these results with published log-reduction doses of SARS-CoV-2 in the same spectral region, led to the conclusion that the bacteriophage PhiX174 exhibits larger log-reduction doses than SARS-CoV-2, nevertheless, it is a better UV-surrogate at 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC) and 302 nm (UVB) than the often applied Phi6.
- SARS-CoV-2 surrogate,
- PhiX174,
- ultraviolet radiation,
- radiation disinfection,
- UVA,
- UVB,
- UVC,
- Far-UVC
Citation: Laura Weyersberg, Florian Sommerfeld, Petra Vatter, Martin Hessling. UV radiation sensitivity of bacteriophage PhiX174 - A potential surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 in terms of radiation inactivation[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 431-443. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023023

Related Papers:

Abstract

To minimize health risks, surrogates are often employed to reduce experiments with pathogenic microorganisms and the associated health risk. Due to structural similarities between the enveloped RNA-viruses SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6, the latter has been established as a nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate for many applications. However, large discrepancies in the UV log-reduction doses between SARS-CoV-2 and Phi6 necessitate the search for a better surrogate for UV inactivation applications. A literature study provided the bacteriophage PhiX174 as a potentially more suitable nonpathogenic coronavirus surrogate candidate. In irradiation experiments, the sensitivity of PhiX174 was investigated upon exposure to UV radiation of wavelengths 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC), 302 nm (broad-band UVB), 311 nm (narrow-band UVB) and 366 nm (UVA) using a plaque assay. The determined log-reduction doses for PhiX174 were 1.3 mJ/cm² @ 222 nm, 5 mJ/cm² @ 254 nm, 17.9 mJ/cm² @ 302 nm, 625 mJ/cm² @ 311 nm and 42.5 J/cm² @ 366 nm. The comparison of these results with published log-reduction doses of SARS-CoV-2 in the same spectral region, led to the conclusion that the bacteriophage PhiX174 exhibits larger log-reduction doses than SARS-CoV-2, nevertheless, it is a better UV-surrogate at 222 nm (Far-UVC), 254 nm (UVC) and 302 nm (UVB) than the often applied Phi6.

Acknowledgments

This work received no funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, L.W., F.S., P.V. and M.H.; Methodology, L.W., F.S., P.V. and M.H.; Validation, L.W., F.S., P.V. and M.H.; Investigation, L.W. and F.S.; Resources, P.V. and M.H.; Data Curation, L.W., F.S. and M.H.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, L.W. and F.S; Writing – Review & Editing L.W., F.S., P.V. and M.H.; Supervision, P.V. and M.H.; Project Administration, P.V. and M.H.

References

[1]	Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University (Johns Hopkins University & Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center), COVID-19 Dashboard (2023). Available from: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html.
[2]	Gerhardt J (2022) Infektionsschutzgesetz (IfSG): Kommentar. München: C.H. Beck.
[3]	Robert Koch Institut, Zoonotischen Influenza bei Menschen (2023). Available from: https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Gefluegelpest/Gefluegelpest.html.
[4]	Robert Koch Institut, Internationaler Mpox-Ausbruch: Einschätzung der Situation in Deutschland (2023). Available from: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/A/Affenpocken/Ausbruch-2022-Situation-Deutschland.html?nn=2444038.
[5]	Singh D, Soorneedi AR, Vaze N, et al. (2023) Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 surrogate inactivation on surfaces and in air using UV and blue light-based intervention technologies. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 73: 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2022.2157907
[6]	Heßling M, Hönes K, Vatter P, et al. (2020) Ultraviolet irradiation doses for coronavirus inactivation - review and analysis of coronavirus photoinactivation studies. GMS Hyg Infect Control 15. https://doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000343
[7]	Seyer A, Sanlidag T (2020) Solar ultraviolet radiation sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet Microbe 1: E8-E9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30013-6
[8]	Kowalski W (2009) Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation handbook: UVGI for air and surface disinfection. Berlin: Springer.
[9]	Buonanno M, Welch D, Shuryak I (2020) Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci Rep 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2
[10]	Zwicker P, Schleusener J, Lohan SB, et al. (2022) Application of 233 nm far-UVC LEDs for eradication of MRSA and MSSA and risk assessment on skin models. Sci Rep 12: 2587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06397-z
[11]	Buonanno M, Welch D, Brenner DJ (2021) Exposure of human skin models to KrCl excimer lamps: the impact of optical filtering. Photochem Photobiol 97: 517-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13383
[12]	Welch D, Aquino de Muro M, Buonanno M, et al. (2022) Wavelength-dependent DNA photodamage in a 3-D human skin model over the far-UVC and germicidal UVC wavelength ranges from 215 to 255 nm. Photochem Photobiol 98: 1167-1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/PHP.13602
[13]	Welch D, Kleiman NJ, Arden PC, et al. (2023) No evidence of induced skin cancer or other skin abnormalities after long-term (66 week) chronic exposure to 222-nm far-UVC radiation. Photochem Photobiol 99: 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13656
[14]	Eadie E, Barnard IMR, Ibbotson SH, et al. (2021) Extreme exposure to filtered far-UVC: a case study. Photochem Photobiol 97: 527-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/php.13385
[15]	Hickerson RP, Conneely MJ, Hirata Tsutsumi SK, et al. (2021) Minimal, superficial DNA damage in human skin from filtered far-ultraviolet C. Br J Dermatol 184: 1197-1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.19816
[16]	Boegel SJ, Gabriel M, Sasges M, et al. (2021) Robust evaluation of ultraviolet-C sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 and surrogate coronaviruses. Microbiol Spectr 9: e0053721. https://doi.org/10.1128/Spectrum.00537-21
[17]	Normile D (2004) Mounting lab accidents raise SARS fears. Science 304: 659-661. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.304.5671.659
[18]	Della-Porta T (2008) Laboratory accidents and breaches in biosafety – they do occur!. Microbiol Aust 29: 62. https://doi.org/10.1071/MA08062
[19]	Cadnum JL, Li DF, Jones LD, et al. (2020) Evaluation of ultraviolet-C light for rapid decontamination of airport security bins in the era of SARS-CoV-2. Pathog Immun 5: 133-142. https://doi.org/10.20411/pai.v5i1.373
[20]	Prussin AJ, Schwake DO, Lin K, et al. (2018) Survival of the enveloped virus Phi6 in droplets as a function of relative humidity, absolute humidity, and temperature. Appl Environ Microbiol 84. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00551-18
[21]	Casanova LM, Weaver SR (2015) Evaluation of eluents for the recovery of an enveloped virus from hands by whole-hand sampling. J Appl Microbiol 118: 1210-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12777
[22]	Ye Y, Ellenberg RM, Graham KE, et al. (2016) Survivability, partitioning, and recovery of enveloped viruses in untreated municipal wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 50: 5077-5085. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00876
[23]	Ma B, Gundy PM, Gerba CP, et al. (2021) UV inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 across the UVC spectrum: KrCl* excimer, mercury-vapor, and light-emitting-diode (LED) sources. Appl Environ Microbiol 87: e0153221. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01532-21
[24]	Silverman AI, Boehm AB (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the persistence and disinfection of human coronaviruses and their viral surrogates in water and wastewater. Environ Sci Technol Lett 7: 544-553. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00313
[25]	Aquino de Carvalho N, Stachler EN, Cimabue N, et al. (2017) Evaluation of Phi6 persistence and suitability as an enveloped virus surrogate. Environ Sci Technol 51: 8692-8700. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01296
[26]	Whitworth C, Mu Y, Houston H, et al. (2020) Persistence of bacteriophage phi 6 on porous and nonporous surfaces and the potential for its use as an Ebola virus or coronavirus surrogate. Appl Environ Microbiol 86. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01482-20
[27]	Lytle CD, Budacz AP, Keville E, et al. (1991) Differential inactivation of surrogate viruses with merocyanine 540. Photochem Photobiol 54: 489-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1991.tb02047.x
[28]	Costa L, Faustino MAF, Neves MGPMS, et al. (2012) Photodynamic inactivation of mammalian viruses and bacteriophages. Viruses 4: 1034-1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/v4071034
[29]	Weyersberg L, Klemens E, Buehler J, et al. (2022) UVC, UVB and UVA susceptibility of Phi6 and its suitability as a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate. AIMS Microbiol 8: 278-291. https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2022020
[30]	Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Q Rev Biol 76: 348-349. https://doi.org/10.1086/394015
[31]	Cormier J, Janes M (2014) A double layer plaque assay using spread plate technique for enumeration of bacteriophage MS2. J Virol Methods 196: 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.10.034
[32]	Vatter P, Hoenes K, Hessling M (2021) Blue light inactivation of the enveloped RNA virus Phi6. BMC Res Notes 14: 187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05602-y
[33]	Setlow R, Boyce R (1960) The ultraviolet light inactivation of ΦX174 bacteriophage at different wave lengths and pH's. Biophys J 1: 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(60)86873-7
[34]	David CN (1964) UV inactivation and thymine dimerization in bacteriophage phi x. Z Vererbungsl 95: 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01268664
[35]	Giese N, Darby J (2000) Sensitivity of microorganisms to different wavelengths of UV light: implications on modeling of medium pressure UV systems. Water Res 34: 4007-4013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00172-X
[36]	Yarus M, Sinsheimer RL (1964) The UV-resistance of double-stranded PhiX174 DNA. J Mol Biol 8: 614-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-2836(64)80018-8
[37]	Rodriguez RA, Bounty S, Beck S, et al. (2014) Photoreactivation of bacteriophages after UV disinfection: role of genome structure and impacts of UV source. Water Res 55: 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.065
[38]	Battigelli DA, Sobsey MD, Lobe DC (1993) The inactivation of hepatitis a virus and other model viruses by UV irradiation. Water Sci Technol 27: 339-342. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1993.0371
[39]	Sommer R, Haider T, Cabaj A, et al. (1998) Time dose reciprocity in UV disinfection of water. Water Sci Technol 38: 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00816-6
[40]	Zuo X, Chu X, Hu J (2015) Effects of water matrix on virus inactivation using common virucidal techniques for condensate urine disinfection. Chemosphere 136: 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.083
[41]	Sommer R (2001) Inactivation of bacteriophages in water by means of non-ionizing (uv-253.7nm) and ionizing (gamma) radiation: a comparative approach. Water Res 35: 3109-3116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00030-6
[42]	Ho J, Seidel M, Niessner R, et al. (2016) Long amplicon (LA)-qPCR for the discrimination of infectious and noninfectious phix174 bacteriophages after UV inactivation. Water Res 103: 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.032
[43]	Proctor WR, Cook JS, Tennant RW (1972) Ultraviolet photobiology of Kilham rat virus and the absolute ultraviolet photosensitivities of other animal viruses: influence of DNA strandedness, molecular weight, and host-cell repair. Virology 49: 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6822(72)90489-8
[44]	Lee HS, Sobsey MD (2011) Survival of prototype strains of somatic coliphage families in environmental waters and when exposed to UV low-pressure monochromatic radiation or heat. Water Res 45: 3723-3734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.04.024
[45]	Nuanualsuwan S, Mariam T, Himathongkham S, et al. (2002) Ultraviolet inactivation of feline calicivirus, human enteric viruses and coliphages. Photochem Photobiol 76: 406-410. https://doi.org/10.1562/0031-8655(2002)0760406UIOFCH2.0.CO2

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)