Comparison of indirect immunofluorescence and western blot method in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.
Cross-reactivity
Hantaviruses
Indirect immunofluorescence
Serology
Western blot
Journal
World journal of methodology
ISSN: 2222-0682
Titre abrégé: World J Methodol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101628739
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Nov 2021
20 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
02
01
2021
revised:
16
07
2021
accepted:
31
08
2021
entrez:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
11
12
2021
medline:
11
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Serologic cross-reactivity between hantaviruses often complicates the interpretation of the results. To analyze the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and western blot (WB) in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections. One hundred eighty-eight serum samples from Puumala (PUUV) and Dobrava (DOBV) orthohantavirus infected patients were analyzed. Serology was performed using commercial tests (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). Using IFA, 49.5% of acute-phase samples showed a monotypic response to PUUV, while 50.5% cross-reacted with other hantaviruses. The overall cross-reactivity was higher for immunoglobulin G (IgG) (50.0%) than for immunoglobulin M (IgM) (25.5%). PUUV IgM/IgG antibodies showed low/moderate reactivity with orthohantaviruses Hantaan (12.3%/31.5%), Seoul (7.5%/17.8%), DOBV (5.4%/ 28.1%), and Saaremaa (4.8%/15.7%). Both DOBV IgM and IgG antibodies were broadly reactive with Hantaan (76.2%/95.2%), Saaremaa (80.9%/83.3%), and Seoul (78.6%/85.7%) and moderate with PUUV (28.5%/38.1%). Using a WB, serotyping was successful in most cross-reactive samples (89.5%). The presented results indicate that WB is more specific than IFA in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections, confirming serotype in most IFA cross-reactive samples.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Serologic cross-reactivity between hantaviruses often complicates the interpretation of the results.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and western blot (WB) in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred eighty-eight serum samples from Puumala (PUUV) and Dobrava (DOBV) orthohantavirus infected patients were analyzed. Serology was performed using commercial tests (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Using IFA, 49.5% of acute-phase samples showed a monotypic response to PUUV, while 50.5% cross-reacted with other hantaviruses. The overall cross-reactivity was higher for immunoglobulin G (IgG) (50.0%) than for immunoglobulin M (IgM) (25.5%). PUUV IgM/IgG antibodies showed low/moderate reactivity with orthohantaviruses Hantaan (12.3%/31.5%), Seoul (7.5%/17.8%), DOBV (5.4%/ 28.1%), and Saaremaa (4.8%/15.7%). Both DOBV IgM and IgG antibodies were broadly reactive with Hantaan (76.2%/95.2%), Saaremaa (80.9%/83.3%), and Seoul (78.6%/85.7%) and moderate with PUUV (28.5%/38.1%). Using a WB, serotyping was successful in most cross-reactive samples (89.5%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The presented results indicate that WB is more specific than IFA in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections, confirming serotype in most IFA cross-reactive samples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34888182
doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294
pmc: PMC8613714
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
294-301Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2006 Dec;13(12):1349-57
pubmed: 17021245
Virus Res. 2014 Jul 17;187:77-83
pubmed: 24487183
Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Jul;8(7):657-61
pubmed: 12095430
Epidemiol Infect. 2018 Jul;146(10):1236-1239
pubmed: 29764527
J Med Virol. 2002 Apr;66(4):542-51
pubmed: 11857535
Swiss Med Wkly. 2014 Mar 20;144:w13937
pubmed: 24652684
Euro Surveill. 2013 Dec 12;18(50):20660
pubmed: 24342520
Lijec Vjesn. 1997 Nov-Dec;119(11-12):311-5
pubmed: 9658776
J Med Virol. 2011 Jan;83(1):108-14
pubmed: 21108346
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;79(2):166-70
pubmed: 24703877
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015 Aug;13(8):939-46
pubmed: 26091780
Virol J. 2017 Jul 18;14(1):133
pubmed: 28720142
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Aug;45(8):2491-7
pubmed: 17537944
Arch Virol. 2002 Apr;147(4):665-82
pubmed: 12038679
Virus Res. 2008 Oct;137(1):97-105
pubmed: 18620010
Scand J Infect Dis. 2009;41(1):51-6
pubmed: 18821445
J Med Virol. 2001 Nov;65(3):605-13
pubmed: 11596100
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2017 Jan 30;11(1):73-80
pubmed: 28141593
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002 Spring;2(1):19-27
pubmed: 12656127
Virus Res. 2008 Jul;135(1):1-9
pubmed: 18342973
J Clin Virol. 2003 Dec;28(3):248-56
pubmed: 14522063
Acta Med Croatica. 2003;57(5):337-46
pubmed: 15011458
Viruses. 2014 Aug 13;6(8):3097-109
pubmed: 25123683
J Virol Methods. 2003 Mar;108(1):117-22
pubmed: 12565162
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Apr;44(4):1608-9; author reply 1609-11
pubmed: 16597913
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(4):e1607
pubmed: 22509420
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Apr 04;7(4):e2157
pubmed: 23593524