{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021660649819494584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007220216606498195, 'mean_word_length': 4.777777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of chick embryo liver and vero cell cultures for the isolation and growth of avian reoviruses.

Twenty-two strains of avian reovirus, all of which had had several passages in avian embryonic cell cultures, produced CPE in Vero cells after 1 to 3 passages. However, even after five blind passages, reoviruses were not isolated in Vero cells from faecal or joint material already shown to contain reovirus by ' chick embryo liver (CELi) passage. Growth characteristics of CELi- or Vero-adapted reovirus strain R2 were compared. Even after 15 passages in Vero cells, strain R2 still replicated in CELi cells, and higher titres of virus were detected when CELi cells rather than Vero were used to titrate virus. The results indicated that Vero cells were unsuitable for the isolation of avian reoviruses from field material.