4.4 Article

Hepatitis E virus seroprevalence of domestic pigs in Germany determined by a novel in-house and two reference ELISAs

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 190, 期 1-2, 页码 11-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.03.010

关键词

Hepatitis; E virus; Recombinant antigen; ELISA; Seroprevalence; Domestic pigs; Germany

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) through the Federal Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition (BLE) [07HS026, 07HS027]
  2. Grimminger-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autochthonous hepatitis E virus (HEV) infections by zoonotic transmission of genotype 3 (GT3) have been reported increasingly from industrialized countries. In this paper the development and validation of an IgG ELISA for the detection of HEV-specific antibodies in domestic pigs is described. Comparison of the diagnostic value ofEscherichia coli-expressed HEV-GT3 capsid protein (CP) derivatives revealed a carboxyterminal derivative as most suitable. Validation of the in-house assay using a commercially available IgG ELISA revealed a high diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. The average HEV seroprevalence of domestic pigs from Germany and the federal state Baden-Wuerttemberg determined by the in-house test was 42.7% and 50.3%, respectively. The seroprevalence in different districts of Baden-Wuerttemberg ranged from 34.9% to 60%, but from 0% to 100% between different herds. These data were compared to those achieved by two commercially available ELISA kits and an in-house ratHEV-based ELISA. In conclusion, the CP-based in-house test proved sensitive and specific, indicating that the ORF3-encoded protein might be dispensable for diagnostics. The novel assay also allowed a parallel analysis by a homologous ratHEV-derived antigen. Thus, the novel IgG ELISA represents a useful tool for future standardized seroprevalence studies in domestic pigs from Germany and other regions of Europe. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据