Comparison of Serologic Assays for Detection of Antibodies against Human Herpesvirus 8

J. Corchero, E. Mar, T. Spira, P. Pellett, N. Inoue
{"title":"Comparison of Serologic Assays for Detection of Antibodies against Human Herpesvirus 8","authors":"J. Corchero, E. Mar, T. Spira, P. Pellett, N. Inoue","doi":"10.1128/CDLI.8.5.913-921.2001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Improvement of serologic assays for detection of antibodies against human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) is critical to better understand its epidemiology and biology. We produced the HHV-8 latent (ORF73) and lytic (ORF65, K8.1, and glycoprotein B) antigens in the Semliki Forest virus system and evaluated their performance in immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). These assays were compared with other latent antigen-based assays, including an IFA based on primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) cells and an ELISA based on bacterially expressed ORF73 antigen, as well as with other lytic antigen-based assays, including an IFA based on induced PEL cells, a commercial ELISA based on purified virions, and ELISAs based on K8.1- and ORF65-derived oligopeptides. We used a panel of 180 serum specimens obtained from three groups expected to have high, intermediate, and low HHV-8 prevalences. Using three different evaluation methods, we found that (i) the performances of the lytic antigen-based ELISAs were almost equivalent, (ii) the lytic antigen-based assays were more sensitive than the latent antigen-based assays, and (iii) in general, IFAs were more sensitive than ELISAs based on the same open reading frame. We also found that serum specimens from healthy individuals contained antibodies cross-reactive with HHV-8 glycoprotein B that can potentially cause false-positive reactions in lytic PEL-based IFAs. Although this is not a substantial problem in most epidemiologic studies, it may confound the interpretation of data in studies that require high assay specificity. Because the K8.1-based IFA provides sensitivity similar to that of lytic PEL-based IFAs and improved specificity, it can be a useful alternative to the PEL-based IFAs.","PeriodicalId":10395,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology","volume":"40 1","pages":"913 - 921"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"53","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.8.5.913-921.2001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 53

Abstract

ABSTRACT Improvement of serologic assays for detection of antibodies against human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) is critical to better understand its epidemiology and biology. We produced the HHV-8 latent (ORF73) and lytic (ORF65, K8.1, and glycoprotein B) antigens in the Semliki Forest virus system and evaluated their performance in immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). These assays were compared with other latent antigen-based assays, including an IFA based on primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) cells and an ELISA based on bacterially expressed ORF73 antigen, as well as with other lytic antigen-based assays, including an IFA based on induced PEL cells, a commercial ELISA based on purified virions, and ELISAs based on K8.1- and ORF65-derived oligopeptides. We used a panel of 180 serum specimens obtained from three groups expected to have high, intermediate, and low HHV-8 prevalences. Using three different evaluation methods, we found that (i) the performances of the lytic antigen-based ELISAs were almost equivalent, (ii) the lytic antigen-based assays were more sensitive than the latent antigen-based assays, and (iii) in general, IFAs were more sensitive than ELISAs based on the same open reading frame. We also found that serum specimens from healthy individuals contained antibodies cross-reactive with HHV-8 glycoprotein B that can potentially cause false-positive reactions in lytic PEL-based IFAs. Although this is not a substantial problem in most epidemiologic studies, it may confound the interpretation of data in studies that require high assay specificity. Because the K8.1-based IFA provides sensitivity similar to that of lytic PEL-based IFAs and improved specificity, it can be a useful alternative to the PEL-based IFAs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人疱疹病毒8抗体血清学检测方法的比较
改进人类疱疹病毒8 (HHV-8)抗体的血清学检测方法对更好地了解其流行病学和生物学至关重要。我们在塞姆利基森林病毒系统中制备了HHV-8潜伏抗原(ORF73)和裂解抗原(ORF65、K8.1和糖蛋白B),并在免疫荧光试验(IFAs)和酶联免疫吸附试验(elisa)中评估了它们的性能。这些检测与其他基于潜伏抗原的检测进行了比较,包括基于原发性积液淋巴瘤(PEL)细胞的IFA和基于细菌表达ORF73抗原的ELISA,以及其他基于溶解抗原的检测,包括基于诱导PEL细胞的IFA,基于纯化病毒粒子的商用ELISA,以及基于K8.1-和orf65衍生寡肽的ELISA。我们使用了一组180份血清样本,这些样本来自三组,分别有高、中、低的HHV-8患病率。使用三种不同的评估方法,我们发现(i)基于裂解抗原的elisa的性能几乎相同,(ii)基于裂解抗原的检测比基于潜伏抗原的检测更敏感,(iii)总体上,基于相同开放阅读框的elisa比基于潜在抗原的检测更敏感。我们还发现,健康个体的血清标本中含有与HHV-8糖蛋白B交叉反应的抗体,这可能会在溶解的基于pel的IFAs中引起假阳性反应。虽然这在大多数流行病学研究中不是一个实质性的问题,但它可能会混淆对需要高测定特异性的研究数据的解释。由于基于k8.1的IFA具有与基于裂解型pel的IFA相似的灵敏度和更高的特异性,因此它可以作为基于pel的IFA的有用替代方案。
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
Immunoglobulin G1 Antibody Response toHelicobacter pylori Heat Shock Protein 60 Is Closely Associated with Low-Grade Gastric Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue Lymphoma Antibodies against Streptococcus agalactiae Proteins cα and R4 in Sera from Pregnant Women from Norway and Zimbabwe Cystatin Capture Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Serodiagnosis of Human Clonorchiasis and Profile of Captured Antigenic Protein of Clonorchis sinensis Recognition of Multiple Classes of Hepatitis C Antibodies Increases Detection Sensitivity in Oral Fluid Circulating Inflammatory Mediators in Patients with Fever: Predicting Bloodstream Infection
×
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