Cargando…

Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM

Differential diagnosis of the Zika virus (ZIKV) is hampered by cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses, mainly dengue viruses. The aim of this study was to compare two commercial methods for detecting ZIKV immunoglobulin M (IgM), an indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Ory, Fernando, Sánchez-Seco, María Paz, Vázquez, Ana, Montero, María Dolores, Sulleiro, Elena, Martínez, Miguel J., Matas, Lurdes, Merino, Francisco J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30029548
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v10070379
_version_ 1783343738294108160
author De Ory, Fernando
Sánchez-Seco, María Paz
Vázquez, Ana
Montero, María Dolores
Sulleiro, Elena
Martínez, Miguel J.
Matas, Lurdes
Merino, Francisco J.
author_facet De Ory, Fernando
Sánchez-Seco, María Paz
Vázquez, Ana
Montero, María Dolores
Sulleiro, Elena
Martínez, Miguel J.
Matas, Lurdes
Merino, Francisco J.
author_sort De Ory, Fernando
collection PubMed
description Differential diagnosis of the Zika virus (ZIKV) is hampered by cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses, mainly dengue viruses. The aim of this study was to compare two commercial methods for detecting ZIKV immunoglobulin M (IgM), an indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA), using the non-structural (NS) 1 protein as an antigen, both from EuroImmun, Germany. In total, 255 serum samples were analyzed, 203 of which showed laboratory markers of ZIKV infections (PCR-positive in serum and/or in urine and/or positive or indeterminate specific IgM). When tested with IIF, 163 samples were IgM-positive, while 13 samples were indeterminate and 78 were negative. When IIF-positive samples were tested using ELISA, we found 61 positive results, 14 indeterminate results, and 88 negative results. Among the indeterminate cases tested with IIF, ELISA analysis found two positive, two indeterminate, and nine negative results. Finally, 74 of the 78 IIF-negative samples proved also to be negative using ELISA. For the calculations, all indeterminate results were considered to be positive. The agreement, sensitivity, and specificity between ELISA and IIF were 60.2%, 44.9%, and 94.9%, respectively. Overall, 101 samples showed discrepant results; these samples were finally classified on the basis of other ZIKV diagnostic approaches (PCR-positive in serum and/or in urine, IgG determinations using IIF or ELISA, and ZIKV Plaque Reduction Neutralization test—positive), when available. A final classification of 228 samples was possible; 126 of them were positive and 102 were negative. The corresponding values of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of IIF were 86.0%, 96.8%, and 72.5%, respectively. The corresponding figures for ELISA were 81.1%, 65.9%, and 100%, respectively. The ELISA and IIF methods are both adequate approaches for detecting ZIKV-specific IgM. However, considering their respective weaknesses (low sensitivity in ELISA and low specificity in IIF), serological results must be considered jointly with other laboratory results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6070806
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60708062018-08-09 Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM De Ory, Fernando Sánchez-Seco, María Paz Vázquez, Ana Montero, María Dolores Sulleiro, Elena Martínez, Miguel J. Matas, Lurdes Merino, Francisco J. Viruses Article Differential diagnosis of the Zika virus (ZIKV) is hampered by cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses, mainly dengue viruses. The aim of this study was to compare two commercial methods for detecting ZIKV immunoglobulin M (IgM), an indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA), using the non-structural (NS) 1 protein as an antigen, both from EuroImmun, Germany. In total, 255 serum samples were analyzed, 203 of which showed laboratory markers of ZIKV infections (PCR-positive in serum and/or in urine and/or positive or indeterminate specific IgM). When tested with IIF, 163 samples were IgM-positive, while 13 samples were indeterminate and 78 were negative. When IIF-positive samples were tested using ELISA, we found 61 positive results, 14 indeterminate results, and 88 negative results. Among the indeterminate cases tested with IIF, ELISA analysis found two positive, two indeterminate, and nine negative results. Finally, 74 of the 78 IIF-negative samples proved also to be negative using ELISA. For the calculations, all indeterminate results were considered to be positive. The agreement, sensitivity, and specificity between ELISA and IIF were 60.2%, 44.9%, and 94.9%, respectively. Overall, 101 samples showed discrepant results; these samples were finally classified on the basis of other ZIKV diagnostic approaches (PCR-positive in serum and/or in urine, IgG determinations using IIF or ELISA, and ZIKV Plaque Reduction Neutralization test—positive), when available. A final classification of 228 samples was possible; 126 of them were positive and 102 were negative. The corresponding values of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of IIF were 86.0%, 96.8%, and 72.5%, respectively. The corresponding figures for ELISA were 81.1%, 65.9%, and 100%, respectively. The ELISA and IIF methods are both adequate approaches for detecting ZIKV-specific IgM. However, considering their respective weaknesses (low sensitivity in ELISA and low specificity in IIF), serological results must be considered jointly with other laboratory results. MDPI 2018-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6070806/ /pubmed/30029548 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v10070379 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
De Ory, Fernando
Sánchez-Seco, María Paz
Vázquez, Ana
Montero, María Dolores
Sulleiro, Elena
Martínez, Miguel J.
Matas, Lurdes
Merino, Francisco J.
Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Indirect Immunofluorescence and NS-1-Based ELISA to Determine Zika Virus-Specific IgM
title_sort comparative evaluation of indirect immunofluorescence and ns-1-based elisa to determine zika virus-specific igm
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30029548
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v10070379
work_keys_str_mv AT deoryfernando comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT sanchezsecomariapaz comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT vazquezana comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT monteromariadolores comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT sulleiroelena comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT martinezmiguelj comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT mataslurdes comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT merinofranciscoj comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm
AT comparativeevaluationofindirectimmunofluorescenceandns1basedelisatodeterminezikavirusspecificigm