4.7 Article

Performance of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays using a West Nile virus recombinant antigen (preM/E) for detection of West Nile virus- and other flavivirus-specific antibodies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 4641-4648

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.10.4641-4648.2004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Focus Technologies developed an indirect immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a mu-capture IgM ELISA for the detection of West Nile virus (WNV)-specific antibodies based on a WNV preM/E protein recombinant antigen. Normal and disease state serum panels were used to assess the performance characteristics of the two WNV ELISA kits. Totals of 807 and 1,423 sera were used to assess the IgG ELISA and IgM ELISA kits, respectively. The Focus Technologies IgG ELISA had a sensitivity of 97.6% and a specificity of 92.1% (excluding non-WNV flavivirus sera). The comparative method for WNV IgG may lack sensitivity in detecting IgG in early WNV infection, so the specificity of the Focus IgG ELISA may be higher than 92.1%. When sera from patients either infected with or vaccinated against other flaviviruses were tested on the WNV IgG assay, 35% of the sera reacted as positive for WNV IgG. Yellow fever and Japanese encephalitis vaccinees were less reactive in the IgG ELISA than St. Louis and dengue fever patients. The Focus Technologies IgM ELISA had a sensitivity and a specificity of 99.3% (excluding the non-WNV flavivirus sera). The overall cross-reactivity for the IgM ELISA to flavivirus sera was 12%, with 31% of St. Louis encephalitis patients found to be WNV IgM positive and no yellow fever vaccinees found to be WNV IgM positive. In a selected population of 706 sera, 15 false-positive WNV IgM sera were identified. The use of a background subtraction method for the IgM ELISA eliminated all 15 false-positive results, giving a specificity of 100% for the Focus IgM ELISA.

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

4.7
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