4.5 Review

Serologic assays for influenza surveillance, diagnosis and vaccine evaluation

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTI-INFECTIVE THERAPY
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 669-683

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1586/ERI.11.51

关键词

antigenic characterization; hemagglutination inhibition; influenza virus; vaccine responses; virus neutralization

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. Nobilon-Merck Sharp and Dohme
  3. Juvaris, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serological techniques play a critical role in various aspects of influenza surveillance, vaccine development and evaluation, and sometimes in diagnosis, particularly for novel influenza virus infections of humans. Because individuals are repeatedly exposed to antigenically and genetically diverse influenza viruses over a lifetime, the gold standard for detection of a recent influenza virus infection or response to current vaccination is the demonstration of a seroconversion, a fourfold or greater rise in antibody titer relative to a baseline sample, to a circulating influenza strain or vaccine component. The hemagglutination-inhibition assay remains the most widely used assay to detect strain-specific serum antibodies to influenza. The hemagglutination-inhibition assay is also used to monitor antigenic changes among influenza viruses which are constantly evolving; such antigenic data is essential for consideration of changes in influenza vaccine composition. The use of the hemagglutinin-specific microneutralization assay has increased, in part, owing to its sensitivity for detection of human antibodies to novel influenza viruses of animal origin. Neutralization assays using replication-incompetent pseudotyped particles may be advantageous in some laboratory settings for detection of antibodies to influenza viruses with heightened biocontainment requirements. The use of standardized protocols and antibody standards are important steps to improve reproducibility and interlaboratory comparability of results of serologic assays for influenza viruses.

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

4.5
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