BACKGROUND: A potential concern with any serologic test to detect antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi is whether the epitopes incorporated in the test provide sufficient cross-reactivity to detect infection with all of the pathogenic strains of the species. This is a particular concern for the C6 test, which is based on reactivity to a single peptide. METHODS: C6 testing and 2-tier testing were performed on acute-phase serum samples obtained from >158 patients with erythema migrans for whom the genotype of the borrelial isolate was defined on the basis of an analysis of the 16S-23S ribosomal DNA spacer region and/or on the genetic variation of the outer surface protein C gene (ospC). The sonicated whole cell-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, the immunoblots used in the 2-tier testing, and the C6 assay all used antigens from B. burgdorferi sensu stricto strain B31. RESULTS: The sensitivity of C6 testing (69.5%) was greater than that of 2-tier testing (38.9%) (P<.001); the difference in sensitivity, however, was statistically significant only for patients infected with 2 of the 3 ribosomal spacer type-defined genotypes. The lower sensitivity of 2-tier testing was attributable to the low sensitivity of the immunoblot tests, rather than the first-tier enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. There was also a trend for the sensitivity of 2-tier testing to vary according to the ospC genotype for the 14 genotypes represented in the study (P=.07); this relationship was not observed with C6 testing. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of sensitivity of the C6 test because of strain diversity seems less likely to be a limitation of this serologic test, compared with 2-tier testing in North American patients with early Lyme disease.
BACKGROUND: A potential concern with any serologic test to detect antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi is whether the epitopes incorporated in the test provide sufficient cross-reactivity to detect infection with all of the pathogenic strains of the species. This is a particular concern for the C6 test, which is based on reactivity to a single peptide. METHODS: C6 testing and 2-tier testing were performed on acute-phase serum samples obtained from >158 patients with erythema migrans for whom the genotype of the borrelial isolate was defined on the basis of an analysis of the 16S-23S ribosomal DNA spacer region and/or on the genetic variation of the outer surface protein C gene (ospC). The sonicated whole cell-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, the immunoblots used in the 2-tier testing, and the C6 assay all used antigens from B. burgdorferi sensu strictostrain B31. RESULTS: The sensitivity of C6 testing (69.5%) was greater than that of 2-tier testing (38.9%) (P<.001); the difference in sensitivity, however, was statistically significant only for patients infected with 2 of the 3 ribosomal spacer type-defined genotypes. The lower sensitivity of 2-tier testing was attributable to the low sensitivity of the immunoblot tests, rather than the first-tier enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. There was also a trend for the sensitivity of 2-tier testing to vary according to the ospC genotype for the 14 genotypes represented in the study (P=.07); this relationship was not observed with C6 testing. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of sensitivity of the C6 test because of strain diversity seems less likely to be a limitation of this serologic test, compared with 2-tier testing in North American patients with early Lyme disease.
Authors: M E Aguero-Rosenfeld; J Nowakowski; S Bittker; D Cooper; R B Nadelman; G P Wormser Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: G P Wormser; D Liveris; J Nowakowski; R B Nadelman; L F Cavaliere; D McKenna; D Holmgren; I Schwartz Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: M T Philipp; Y Lobet; R P Bohm; E D Roberts; V A Dennis; Y Gu; R C Lowrie; P Desmons; P H Duray; J D England; P Hauser; J Piesman; K Xu Journal: Vaccine Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: G Seinost; D E Dykhuizen; R J Dattwyler; W T Golde; J J Dunn; I N Wang; G P Wormser; M E Schriefer; B J Luft Journal: Infect Immun Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: D Liveris; S Varde; R Iyer; S Koenig; S Bittker; D Cooper; D McKenna; J Nowakowski; R B Nadelman; G P Wormser; I Schwartz Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Ian R C Davis; Shelly A McNeil; Wanda Allen; Donna MacKinnon-Cameron; L Robbin Lindsay; Katarina Bernat; Antonia Dibernardo; Jason J LeBlanc; Todd F Hatchette Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: N H Ogden; E J Feil; P A Leighton; L R Lindsay; G Margos; S Mechai; P Michel; T J Moriarty Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: N H Ogden; G Margos; D M Aanensen; M A Drebot; E J Feil; K Hanincová; I Schwartz; S Tyler; L R Lindsay Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Gary P Wormser; Martin Schriefer; Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld; Andrew Levin; Allen C Steere; Robert B Nadelman; John Nowakowski; Adriana Marques; Barbara J B Johnson; J Stephen Dumler Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Yvette A Girard; Bridgit Travinsky; Anna Schotthoefer; Natalia Fedorova; Rebecca J Eisen; Lars Eisen; Alan G Barbour; Robert S Lane Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2009-09-25 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Gary P Wormser; John Nowakowski; Robert B Nadelman; Paul Visintainer; Andrew Levin; Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2008-08-20