Limits of diagnostic accuracy of anti-hepatitis C virus antibodies detection by ELISA and immunoblot assay.

Anatoly P Suslov, Stanislav N Kuzin, Tatiana V Golosova, Nina V Shalunova, Nikolai A Malyshev, Natalia V Sadikova, Lubov M Vavilova, Anna V Somova, Elena E Musina, Maria V Ivanova, Tatiana T Kipor, Igor M Timonin, Lubov E Kuzina, Mihail A Godkov, Alexei I Bajenov, Vladimir G Nesterenko
{"title":"Limits of diagnostic accuracy of anti-hepatitis C virus antibodies detection by ELISA and immunoblot assay.","authors":"Anatoly P Suslov,&nbsp;Stanislav N Kuzin,&nbsp;Tatiana V Golosova,&nbsp;Nina V Shalunova,&nbsp;Nikolai A Malyshev,&nbsp;Natalia V Sadikova,&nbsp;Lubov M Vavilova,&nbsp;Anna V Somova,&nbsp;Elena E Musina,&nbsp;Maria V Ivanova,&nbsp;Tatiana T Kipor,&nbsp;Igor M Timonin,&nbsp;Lubov E Kuzina,&nbsp;Mihail A Godkov,&nbsp;Alexei I Bajenov,&nbsp;Vladimir G Nesterenko","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When human sera samples are tested for anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies using different ELISA kits as well as immunoblot assay kits discrepant results often occur. As a result the diagnostics of HCV infection in such sera remains unclear. The purpose of this investigation is to define the limits of HCV serodiagnostics. Overall 7 different test kits of domestic and foreign manufacturers were used for the sampled sera testing. Preliminary comparative study, using seroconversion panels PHV905, PHV907, PHV908 was performed and reference kit was chosen (Murex anti-HCV version 4) as the most sensitive kit on the base of this study results. Overall 1640 sera samples have been screened using different anti-HCV ELISA kits and 667 of them gave discrepant results in at least two kits. These sera were then tested using three anti-HCV ELISA kits (first set of 377 samples) or four anti-HCV ELISA kits (second set of 290 samples) at the conditions of reference laboratory. In the first set 17.2% samples remained discrepant and in the second set - 13.4%. \"Discrepant\" sera were further tested in RIBA 3.0 and INNO-LIA immunoblot confirmatory assays, but approximately 5-7% of them remained undetermined after all the tests. For the samples with signal-to-cutoff ratio higher than 3.0 high rate of result consistency by reference, ELISA routing and INNO-LIA immunoblot assay was observed. On the other hand the results of tests 27 \"problematic\" sera in RIBA 3.0 and INNO-LIA were consistent only in 55.5% cases. Analysis of the antigen spectrum reactive with antibodies in \"problematic\" sera, demonstrated predominance of Core, NS3 and NS4 antigens for sera, positive in RIBA 3.0 and Core and NS3 antigens for sera, positive in INNO-LIA. To overcome the problem of undetermined sera, methods based on other principles, as well as alternative criteria of HCV infection diagnostics are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21507,"journal":{"name":"Russian journal of immunology : RJI : official journal of Russian Society of Immunology","volume":"7 2","pages":"175-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian journal of immunology : RJI : official journal of Russian Society of Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When human sera samples are tested for anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies using different ELISA kits as well as immunoblot assay kits discrepant results often occur. As a result the diagnostics of HCV infection in such sera remains unclear. The purpose of this investigation is to define the limits of HCV serodiagnostics. Overall 7 different test kits of domestic and foreign manufacturers were used for the sampled sera testing. Preliminary comparative study, using seroconversion panels PHV905, PHV907, PHV908 was performed and reference kit was chosen (Murex anti-HCV version 4) as the most sensitive kit on the base of this study results. Overall 1640 sera samples have been screened using different anti-HCV ELISA kits and 667 of them gave discrepant results in at least two kits. These sera were then tested using three anti-HCV ELISA kits (first set of 377 samples) or four anti-HCV ELISA kits (second set of 290 samples) at the conditions of reference laboratory. In the first set 17.2% samples remained discrepant and in the second set - 13.4%. "Discrepant" sera were further tested in RIBA 3.0 and INNO-LIA immunoblot confirmatory assays, but approximately 5-7% of them remained undetermined after all the tests. For the samples with signal-to-cutoff ratio higher than 3.0 high rate of result consistency by reference, ELISA routing and INNO-LIA immunoblot assay was observed. On the other hand the results of tests 27 "problematic" sera in RIBA 3.0 and INNO-LIA were consistent only in 55.5% cases. Analysis of the antigen spectrum reactive with antibodies in "problematic" sera, demonstrated predominance of Core, NS3 and NS4 antigens for sera, positive in RIBA 3.0 and Core and NS3 antigens for sera, positive in INNO-LIA. To overcome the problem of undetermined sera, methods based on other principles, as well as alternative criteria of HCV infection diagnostics are discussed.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ELISA和免疫印迹法检测丙型肝炎病毒抗体诊断准确性的限制。
当使用不同的ELISA试剂盒和免疫印迹测定试剂盒检测人类血清样本抗丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)抗体时,经常会出现不同的结果。因此,在这些血清中诊断丙型肝炎病毒感染仍然不清楚。本调查的目的是确定丙型肝炎病毒血清诊断的限度。样本血清检测共采用国内外生产厂家7种不同检测试剂盒。初步对比研究,采用血清转化板PHV905、PHV907、PHV908,并根据本研究结果选择参比试剂盒(Murex anti-HCV version 4)作为最敏感试剂盒。使用不同的抗- hcv ELISA试剂盒对1640份血清样本进行了筛选,其中667份在至少两种试剂盒中给出了不同的结果。然后在参比实验室条件下使用3个抗- hcv ELISA试剂盒(第一组377个样本)或4个抗- hcv ELISA试剂盒(第二组290个样本)对这些血清进行检测。在第一组中,17.2%的样本保持差异,在第二组中- 13.4%。在RIBA 3.0和INNO-LIA免疫印迹验证试验中进一步检测“差异”血清,但在所有测试后,约有5-7%的差异仍未确定。对参比信号截止比大于3.0、结果一致性高的样品,分别进行ELISA路由和INNO-LIA免疫印迹检测。另一方面,27例“问题”血清的RIBA 3.0和INNO-LIA检测结果仅在55.5%的病例中一致。“问题”血清抗原谱与抗体反应分析显示,血清以Core、NS3和NS4抗原为主,血清RIBA 3.0和Core、NS3抗原阳性,INNO-LIA阳性。为了克服不确定血清的问题,基于其他原则的方法,以及丙型肝炎病毒感染诊断的替代标准进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Levels of TREC and KREC molecules significance determining in peripheral blood for predicting the outcome of COVID-19 disease in the acute period Characteristic changes of extracellular Dna levels, indices of netosis and inflammation in peripheral blood in patients with asthma Contents of matrix metalloproteinase type 2 (MMP-2) and complexes MMP-9/TIMP-1, MMP-2/TIMP-2, and total cholesterol in practically healthy people and patients with hypertension Immunological and biochemical markers of adverse outcome in COVID-19 and arterial hypertension Clinical and immunological efficacy of immunomodulating hexapeptide associated with the restoration of CD11b<sup>+</sup>CD64<sup>-</sup>CD32<sup>+</sup>CD16<sup>+</sup> and CD11b<sup>+</sup>CD64<sup>+</sup>CD32<sup>+</sup>CD16<sup>+</sup> neutrophil granulocytes subset in women with chronic infectious and inflammatory diseases of the pelvic organs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1