4.4 Article

Development and evaluation of baculovirus-expressed Chikungunya virus E1 envelope proteins for serodiagnosis of Chikungunya infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 67-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2014.05.014

关键词

Chikungunya virus; El envelope protein; Wild-type (WT); Mutant (MUT); Baculovirus; Captured GAC-ELISAs

资金

  1. CDC Endowment Fund
  2. National Environmental Agency, Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population-based serosurveillance studies provide critical estimates on community-level immunity and the potential for future outbreaks. Currently, serological assays, such as IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and indirect immunofluorescence tests (IIFT) based on the inactivated whole virus are used to determine past Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection. However, these commercially available tests have variable sensitivities. To develop and evaluate recombinant based CHIKV-specific IgG antibody capture ELISAs (GAC-ELISAs), baculoviruses carrying wild-type (E1-A226, named WT) or mutant (E1-A226V, named MUT) E1 envelope protein genes of CHIKV were generated. The seroreactivity of recombinant CHIKV WT and MUT envelope proteins were determined using residual blood, collected from CHIKV-confirmed patients. The sensitivities of both recombinant CHIKV envelope proteins were 83.0% as measured by GAC-ELISAs. The specificities of both recombinant proteins were 87.8%. These GAC-ELISAs were also able to detect the persistence of anti-CHIKV IgG antibodies up to 6 months after the disease onset, together with rise in sensitivities with increasing time. These results suggest that the baculovirus purified recombinant CHIKV envelope proteins react with anti-CHIKV IgG antibodies and may be useful in population-based seroprevalence surveys. In addition, these GAC-ELISAs offer good diagnostic value to determine the recent/past CHIKV infection status in non-endemic populations. (C) 2014 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