SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2013 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 5

Comparative evaluation of liquid-phase blocking ELISA and solid-phase competition ELISA methods for the detection of antibodies to the structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease types O and A viruses

Murat ŞEVİK
Fahri Ferudun ÖZTÜRK
Pages
523–528
Publication Date
2013-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that SPCE had a better specificity (96.67% for serotype O and 100% for serotype A) than LPBE (90% for serotype O and 93.33% for serotype A).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we compared 2 methods, liquid-phase blocking ELISA (LPBE) and solid-phase competition ELISA (SPCE), for the detection of antibodies to the structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV).
📊
Key Findings & Data:These methods were compared using sera collected from cattle (n = 30) without a history of foot-and-mouth disease infection or vaccination, cattle (n = 180) vaccinated with oil-adjuvanted bivalent vaccine, and international reference sera (positive, weak positive, and negative) for FMDV serotypes O and A.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that SPCE had a better specificity (96.67% for serotype O and 100% for serotype A) than LPBE (90% for serotype O and 93.33% for serotype A).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Cattle · foot-and-mouth disease · structural protein

Abstract

In this study, we compared 2 methods, liquid-phase blocking ELISA (LPBE) and solid-phase competition ELISA (SPCE), for the detection of antibodies to the structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV). These methods were compared using sera collected from cattle (n = 30) without a history of foot-and-mouth disease infection or vaccination, cattle (n = 180) vaccinated with oil-adjuvanted bivalent vaccine, and international reference sera (positive, weak positive, and negative) for FMDV serotypes O and A. The results showed that SPCE had a better specificity (96.67% for serotype O and 100% for serotype A) than LPBE (90% for serotype O and 93.33% for serotype A). Sensitivity of LPBE (97.22% for serotype O and 98.33% for serotype A) was almost equivalent to that of SPCE (98.33% for serotype O and 98.89% for serotype A). It can be concluded that SPCE is more suitable than LPBE for use as a screening test for the detection of antibodies against structural proteins of FMDV.

Özet

In this study, we compared 2 methods, liquid-phase blocking ELISA (LPBE) and solid-phase competition ELISA (SPCE), for the detection of antibodies to the structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV). These methods were compared using sera collected from cattle (n = 30) without a history of foot-and-mouth disease infection or vaccination, cattle (n = 180) vaccinated with oil-adjuvanted bivalent vaccine, and international reference sera (positive, weak positive, and negative) for FMDV serotypes O and A. The results showed that SPCE had a better specificity (96.67% for serotype O and 100% for serotype A) than LPBE (90% for serotype O and 93.33% for serotype A). Sensitivity of LPBE (97.22% for serotype O and 98.33% for serotype A) was almost equivalent to that of SPCE (98.33% for serotype O and 98.89% for serotype A). It can be concluded that SPCE is more suitable than LPBE for use as a screening test for the detection of antibodies against structural proteins of FMDV.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞEVİK, M., ÖZTÜRK, F. F. (2013). Comparative evaluation of liquid-phase blocking ELISA and solid-phase competition ELISA methods for the detection of antibodies to the structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease types O and A viruses. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 5, 523–528. https://ajindex.com/articles/121904

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Grubman MJ, Baxt B. Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17: 465–493.
  2. Hammond JM, King D, Knowles N, Mioulet V, Li Y. Analysis of the Worldwide FMD Situation Trends and Regional Differences. In: FAO/OIE Global Conference on Foot and Mouth Disease Control. Bangkok, Thailand, 2012.
  3. Alexandersen S, Mowat GN. Foot-and-mouth disease: host range and pathogenesis. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2005; 288: 9–42.
  4. Acharya R, Fry E, Stuart D, Fox G, Rowlands D, Brown F. The three-dimensional structure of foot-and-mouth disease virus at 9 Ǻ resolution. Nature 1989; 337: 709–713.
  5. Borrego B, Camarero JA, Mateu MG, Domingo E. A highly divergent antigenic site of foot-and-mouth disease virus retains its immunodominance. Viral Immunol 1995; 8: 11–18.
  6. Domingo E, Escarmís C, Baranowski E, Ruiz-Jarabo CM, Carrillo E, Nşñez JI, Sobrino F. Evolution of foot-andmouth disease virus. Virus Res 2003; 91: 47–63. Doel TR. FMD vaccines. Virus Res 2003; 91: 81–99.
  7. McKercher PD, Graves JH. A review of the current status of oil adjuvants in foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. Dev Biol Standard 1977; 35: 107–112.
  8. Wang G, Pan L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Z, Lü J, Zhou P, Fang Y, Shoutian J. Intranasal delivery of cationic PLGA nano/ microparticles-loaded FMDV DNA vaccine encoding IL-6 elicited protective immunity against FMDV challenge. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e27605. Abu Elzein EME, Crowther JR. Detection and quantification of IgM, IgA, IgG 1 and IgG 2 antibodies against foot-andmouth disease virus from bovine sera using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Hyg Camb 1981; 86: 79–85.
  9. Smitsaart EN, Zanelli M, Rivera I, Fondevila N, Compaired D, Maradei E, Bianchi T, O’Donnell V, Schudel AA. Assessment using ELISA of the herd immunity levels induced in cattle by foot-and-mouth disease oil vaccines. Prev Vet Med 1998; 33: 283–296. OIE. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. 6th ed. Paris, France: OIE, 2012.
  10. Mackay DKJ, Bulut AN, Rendle T, Davidson F, Ferris NP. A solid-phase competition ELISA for measuring antibody to footand-mouth disease virus. J Virol Methods 2001; 97: 33–48.
  11. Hamblin C, Barnett ITR, Hedger RS. A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus. I. Development and method ELISA. J Immunol Methods 1986; 93: 115–121.
  12. Paiba GA, Anderson J, Paton DJ, Soldan AW, Alexandersen S, Corteyn M, Wilsden G, Hamblin P, MacKay DK, Donaldson AI. Validation of a foot-and-mouth disease antibody screenin