4.4 Article

Recombinant envelope protein-based enzyme immunoassay for IgG antibodies is comparable to neutralization tests for epidemiological studies of dengue infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 114-120

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2012.09.012

关键词

Dengue virus; Serology; Diagnosis; ELISA; Recombinant envelope proteins

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  4. INCT and PRONEX-Dengue
  5. Departamento de Ciencia e Tecnologia do Ministerio da Saude (DECIT/MS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dengue virus (DENV) is the most prevalent arbovirus in the world, found mainly in tropical regions. As clinical manifestations present frequently as nonspecific febrile illness, laboratory diagnosis is essential to confirm DENV infections and for epidemiological studies. Recombinant envelope (E) antigens of four serotypes of DENV were used to develop an immunoglobulin G enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (IgG-ELISA). To evaluate the IgG-ELISA, a panel of serum samples that had been tested previously by a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) was investigated for the presence of anti-E antibodies against the four DENV serotypes. IgG-ELISA was found to have a sensitivity (91%) and specificity (98%) at a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) optimized cutoff and demonstrated high performance as well as good indexes. A concordance of 97% was achieved between both assays, and only 21/704(3%) samples were not concordant. The results of the present study demonstrate a moderate correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and IgG-ELISA values. These findings indicate that the recombinant protein-based IgG-ELISA is a suitable method for routine serodiagnosis, monitoring and seroepidemiological studies of DENV infections. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据