Tatjana Vilibic-Cavlek, Ljubo Barbic, Vladimir Stevanovic, Vladimir Savic, Anna Mrzljak, Maja Bogdanic, Irena Tabain
{"title":"间接免疫荧光法与免疫印迹法诊断汉坦病毒感染的比较。","authors":"Tatjana Vilibic-Cavlek, Ljubo Barbic, Vladimir Stevanovic, Vladimir Savic, Anna Mrzljak, Maja Bogdanic, Irena Tabain","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Serologic cross-reactivity between hantaviruses often complicates the interpretation of the results.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyze the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and western blot (WB) in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23729,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"11 6","pages":"294-301"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/32/WJM-11-294.PMC8613714.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of indirect immunofluorescence and western blot method in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.\",\"authors\":\"Tatjana Vilibic-Cavlek, Ljubo Barbic, Vladimir Stevanovic, Vladimir Savic, Anna Mrzljak, Maja Bogdanic, Irena Tabain\",\"doi\":\"10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Serologic cross-reactivity between hantaviruses often complicates the interpretation of the results.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyze the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and western blot (WB) in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"volume\":\"11 6\",\"pages\":\"294-301\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/32/WJM-11-294.PMC8613714.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i6.294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
背景:汉坦病毒之间的血清学交叉反应性常常使结果的解释复杂化。目的:分析间接免疫荧光法(IFA)和免疫印迹法(WB)对汉坦病毒感染的诊断价值。方法:对来自普乌马拉(PUUV)和多布拉瓦(DOBV)正汉坦病毒感染患者的188份血清进行分析。血清学采用商业检测(euroimmune, l beck,德国)。结果:采用IFA法,49.5%的急性期样本对PUUV有单型反应,50.5%的急性期样本与其他汉坦病毒有交叉反应。免疫球蛋白G (IgG)的总体交叉反应性为50.0%,高于免疫球蛋白M (IgM)的25.5%。PUUV IgM/IgG抗体对Hantaan(12.3%/31.5%)、Seoul(7.5%/17.8%)、DOBV(5.4%/ 28.1%)和Saaremaa(4.8%/15.7%)的反应性为低/中等。DOBV IgM和IgG抗体与Hantaan(76.2%/95.2%)、Saaremaa(80.9%/83.3%)和Seoul(78.6%/85.7%)有广泛反应,与PUUV有中度反应(28.5%/38.1%)。使用WB,大多数交叉反应样本(89.5%)的血清分型成功。结论:WB对汉坦病毒感染的诊断特异性高于IFA,证实了大多数IFA交叉反应样本的血清型。
Comparison of indirect immunofluorescence and western blot method in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.
Background: Serologic cross-reactivity between hantaviruses often complicates the interpretation of the results.
Aim: To analyze the diagnostic value of indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and western blot (WB) in the diagnosis of hantavirus infections.
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: 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: 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.