Literature DB >> 26290128

Evaluation of two commercial PRRSV antibody ELISA kits with samples of known status and singleton reactors.

Byoung-Joo Seo1, Hyunil Kim, Ho-Seong Cho, Byoung-Yong Park, Won-Il Kim.   

Abstract

Two commercial PRRSV ELISA kits (IDEXX and Bionote) were evaluated for their sensitivity and specificity using 476 PRRS-positive serum samples collected from 7 animal challenge experiments and 1,000 PRRS-negative sera. Both ELISA kits exhibited 100% sensitivity with sera collected 14 to 42 days post-infection, and the results from the kits were highly correlated (R(2)=0.9207). The specificity of IDEXX or Bionote kit was 99.9% or 99.7%, respectively. In addition, the Bionote ELISA kit was used to examine 100 sera that were determined to be falsely positive either by IDEXX 2XR or 3XR ELISA, and only 7 of these samples were found to be positive. These results indicate that both ELISA kits exhibited similar levels of sensitivity and specificity and would complement one another for the verification of false-positive samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26290128      PMCID: PMC4751132          DOI: 10.1292/jvms.15-0126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vet Med Sci        ISSN: 0916-7250            Impact factor:   1.267


Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) is a cause of major economic loss to the pig industry worldwide [1]. PRRSV primarily affects the respiratory tract and reproductive organs [11]. PRRSV was first isolated in North America in 1987 and in Europe in 1990 [2, 3]. The PRRSV genome is approximately 15 kb in length and contains at least ten open reading frames (ORFs: OPF1a/1b, 2a/b, 3, 4, 5a/5b, 6 and 7) [13, 14, 19]. Nucleocapsid protein (N) encoded by ORF7 is a 15-kDa, multi-functional protein and the most abundant component of the virion [15, 21, 22]. The N protein is conserved among various PRRSV strains and is highly immunogenic [7, 10, 16, 18, 21]. Previous studies demonstrated that the development of immunoassays using the N protein for the detection of anti-PRRSV antibodies is sensitive, specific and repeatable [4, 12]. Therefore, the N protein is a suitable candidate for diagnosis of the disease using virus-specific antibody detection [4]. Various serological tests, such as indirect immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assays, immunoperoxidase monolayer antibody (IPMA) assays, virus neutralization and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), have been used for the routine diagnosis of PRRS [5, 8, 17, 20, 23,24,25,26], and recombinant N protein-based ELISAs are most commonly used for PRRSV diagnosis [6, 12]. Among these serological methods, the IDEXX PRRS ELISA kit in particular has become an industry standard for the diagnosis of PRRSV due to its simple protocols and high sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility [4, 9]. However, control of this virus requires increasingly reliable detection tools, import controls, outbreak investigations and follow-up studies. In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of two commercial PRRSV antibody (Ab) ELISA kits, IDEXX PRRS 3XR Ab ELISA (Westbrook, ME, U.S.A.) and Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA 4.0 (Hwasung, South Korea), are compared using samples collected from animal challenge studies with various PRRSV strains as well as field samples from Korean PRRS-negative swine farms. Four hundred seventy-six serum samples were selected from 7 different animal challenge studies that were conducted with 7 different North America (type II) PRRSV strains [VR2332 (GenBank accession number: JF430265), JA142 (AY424271), SDSU73 (JN654458), MN184 (EF488739), K07-2273 (JQ656251), K08-1053 (JQ656266) or Ingelvac PRRS MLV (hereafter “MLV”, AF159149)] that share 88–99% nucleotide sequence homology based on ORF5 sequences. In short, ten 4-week-old, PRRS-negative pigs were purchased for each virus strain, challenged intramuscularly with each of the 7 virus strains at 103 TCID50/ml and bled at 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days post-challenge (dpc). Fourteen samples from two pigs challenged with MN184 or MLV were excluded from the study due to insufficient sample quantities. These collected samples were used as known positive samples to determine the sensitivities of the ELISA kits. The animal experiment protocol was approved by the Chonbuk National University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (approval number: 2012-0025). Forty swine farms that have maintained PRRS-negative status over the past year were confirmed to be negative by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and IDEXX PRRS 3XR Ab ELISA and were selected for the study. Information regarding the primers and probe for the real-time RT-PCR is as follows: forward primer: TGTCAGATTCAGGGAGRATAAGTTAC; probe: TTTTGCACCACMGCCAGCCC; and reverse primer: ATCARGCGCACAGTRTGATGC. RT-PCR was conducted with the AgPath-IDTM One-Step RT-PCR Kit (Ambion, Austin, TX, U.S.A.) in a 25 µl reaction volume using 5 µl of extracted template. PCR amplification included (a) reverse transcription for 10 min at 45°C; (b) a 10 min activation step at 95°C; and (c) 40 cycles of 15 sec at 95°C and 45 sec at 60°C. Samples demonstrating a threshold cycle (Ct) of 35 cycles or less were considered positive. One thousand sera samples collected from the 40 PRRS-negative farms were used to determine the specificity of the Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA 4.0 kit. One hundred sera samples that yielded false-positive results by either IDEXX 2XR (n=23) or 3XR ELISA (n=81) but were confirmed negative by IFA were evaluated using the Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA. IFAs were conducted in 96-well plates prepared by inoculating MARC-145 cell monolayers with VR2332 at the titer of 104 TCID50/ml. The presence of antibody was confirmed by immunofluorescence microscopy using a PRRS virus-specific monoclonal antibody, SDOW17, labeled with FITC (Rural Technologies, Brookings, SD, U.S.A.). The PRRS virus-specific IFA antibody titer was determined as the reciprocal of the highest dilution in which specific fluorescence was detected. IDEXX PRRS Ab ELISA and Bionote Ab ELISA kit assays were performed according to the manufacturers’ specifications, and the presence of anti-PRRSV antibodies was measured by calculating the sample-to-positive (S/P) cut-off value of 0.4 to distinguish between positive and negative samples. All of the field serum samples were collected with consent from the producers who submitted the samples to Chonbuk National University-Veterinary Diagnostic Center. All false-positive or false-negative samples were determined either by IDEXX PRRS Ab ELISA or Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA and were confirmed by IFA. After two weeks, this process was repeated again on serum samples collected from the same pigs for final confirmation. Four hundred seventy-six samples collected weekly from the pigs challenged with 7 different PRRSV strains were evaluated by IDEXX ELISA and Bionote ELISA. Both kits were capable of detecting PRRSV-specific antibodies at 14 to 42 dpc, although neither method could detect PRRSV-specific antibodies at 7 dpc (Fig. 1). Good correlation (R2=0.9207) of the S/P ratios from both ELISA kits was observed, whereas overall S/P values from the IDEXX ELISA were consistently higher than those from the Bionote ELISA (Fig. S1). Based on this comparison, it was concluded that both ELISA kits could be used as effective complementary methods given that the ELISA kits exhibited 100% sensitivity with a high correlation. To determine the specificity of the Bionote ELISA, 1,000 samples collected from 40 PRRS-negative farms were also evaluated. Three samples with S/P ratios ranging from 0.4389 to 0.6097 (considered positive) were later determined to be false-positives, because those samples were negative by IFA and no evidence of PRRS outbreak was observed in those pigs. The three samples that returned false-positive signals with the Bionote ELISA were evaluated using the IDEXX ELISA, and two were determined to be negative. Thus, the IDEXX and Bionote ELISA kits detected only 1 and 3 false-positives out of 1,000 negative samples, resulting in 99.9 and 99.7% specificity rates, respectively (Table 1 and Fig. S2). Recently, IDEXX 3XR ELISA was also compared to another commercial PRRS antibody ELISA kit (HIPRA ELISA) as well as fluorescent microbead immunoassays (FMIA) [10]. IDEXX ELISA detected positive animals earlier than HIPRA ELISA, and IDEXX ELISA also exhibited 100% sensitivity with sera collected at 14 dpc and presented the highest efficiency rate (100%), while HIPRA ELISA exhibited a lower efficiency (80%) when applied to the same set of samples. The FMIA assay exhibited the highest false-positive rate for known negative field samples when compared with the commercial ELISAs (IDEXX and HIPRA ELISA kits) for the detection of PRRSV antibodies.
Fig. 1.

Test results from two commercial PRRS ELISA kits applied to 476 serum samples sequentially collected from PRRS-negative pigs challenged with 7 different PRRSV strains. *The horizontal line indicates the cut-off value (0.4) for positivity.

Table 1.

Test results from IDEXX PRRS 3XR ELISA for samples that yielded false-positive results based on the Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA

Case No.BionoteIDEXX


S/P ratioResultS/P ratioResult
23-31-10.4389F-Posa)–0.049Negb)
100-20.6097F-Pos0.0142Neg
8-630.5646F-Pos0.4286F-Pos

a) F-Pos; False-positive, b) Neg; Negative.

Test results from two commercial PRRS ELISA kits applied to 476 serum samples sequentially collected from PRRS-negative pigs challenged with 7 different PRRSV strains. *The horizontal line indicates the cut-off value (0.4) for positivity. a) F-Pos; False-positive, b) Neg; Negative. Bionote ELISA was performed on 100 serum samples that were judged to be falsely positive by either IDEXX 2XR or 3XR ELISA, and only 7 samples were determined to actually be positive (Fig. 2). S/P ratios ranged from 0.41 to 1.55 with an average of 0.7401 for IDEXX 2XR. For IDEXX 3XR, an S/P ratio range of 0.41 to 1.99 with an average of 0.6834 was noted. S/P ratios ranged from 0.41 to 0.97 S/P with an average of 0.5889 for Bionote false-positives (Table 2). These results indicate that Bionote ELISA or IDEXX ELISAs could complement one another for the verification of false-positive samples, rather than suggesting an interpretation that the Bionote ELISA is superior to IDEXX 2XR or 3XR ELISA, because the falsely positive samples were collected from routine PRRSV serological testing with IDEXX 3XR ELISA on field samples submitted from PRRS-negative farms between the years 2012 and 2014. Although commercial ELISA kits are the most reliable tests to detect PRRSV infection at the herd level, the specificity of the kits has been frequently challenged by unexpected false-positive results at various rates. In a previous study [9], a blocking ELISA (bELISA) was developed and applied to 133 serum samples that yielded unexpected positive IDEXX ELISA results from 4,038 diagnostic samples submitted by farms from which PRRS-negative results were expected. The bELISA was developed using a recombinant PRRSV N protein and a biotinylated monoclonal antibody. The sensitivity and specificity of this technique were 97.8% and 100%, respectively, based on the evaluation of 686 sera collected from PRRSV-infected or uninfected pigs. In the study, the bELISA identified 97% of the samples as negative. Therefore, the data indicate that a significantly increased percentage of unexpected positive results could be observed with the IDEXX ELISA, despite the fact that it is one of the most widely accepted assays [9]. In this regard, the Bionote ELISA appears to be a good alternative method to address singleton reactors detected by IDEXX ELISA, given that the Bionote ELISA only detected 7 samples as false-positives among 100 singleton samples determined to be positive by IDEXX 2XR or 3XR ELISAs.
Fig. 2.

Test results from the Bionote PRRS ELISA kit using 100 samples that returned false-positive results based on either IDEXXX PRRS 2XR or 3XR ELISA. *The horizontal line indicates the cut-off value (0.4) for positivity.

Table 2.

Test results from the Bionote PRRS Ab ELISA on samples identified as false positives either by IDEXX PRRS 2XR or 3XR ELISA

Case No.Sample No.2XR3XRBionoteIFA



S/P ratioResultS/P ratioResultSP ratioResult
12-009910.92F-Posa-0.03Negb0.07NegNeg
20.44F-Pos-0.03Neg0.07NegNeg
12-090930.65F-Pos0.04Neg0.04NegNeg
40.46F-Pos0.13Neg0NegNeg
12-094850.69F-Pos0.01Neg0NegNeg
12-096660.64F-Pos0.02Neg0.03NegNeg
13-269470.57F-Pos0.19Neg0.71F-PosNeg
13-329480.18Neg0.44F-Pos0.01NegNeg
13-451990.06Neg0.96F-Pos0.41F-PosNeg
13-4509100.13Neg0.54F-Pos0.29NegNeg
12-0796110.48F-Pos0.09Neg0NegNeg
120.43F-Pos0.06Neg0.02NegNeg
12-0959130.48F-Pos0.18Neg0.01NegNeg
13-1999140.05Neg0.44F-Pos0.05NegNeg
13-241315–0.04Neg0.63F-Pos0.1NegNeg
13-2862160.05Neg0.46F-Pos0.26NegNeg
17–0.05Neg0.42F-Pos0.35NegNeg
18–0.05Neg0.83F-Pos0.14NegNeg
13-316819–0.07Neg0.56F-Pos0NegNeg
13-331820–0.06Neg0.84F-Pos0.32NegNeg
210.01Neg0.43F-Pos0.33NegNeg
13-339922–0.44Neg0.58F-Pos0.26NegNeg
13-3609230.08Neg0.44F-Pos0.04NegNeg
13-412924–0.06Neg0.74F-Pos0.13NegNeg
13-420025–0.05Neg0.6F-Pos0.43F-PosNeg
13-437226–0.09Neg0.93F-Pos0.3NegNeg
13-4451270.09Neg0.44F-Pos0.26NegNeg
28–0.17Neg0.82F-Pos0.31NegNeg
13-499729–0.11Neg1.05F-Pos0.04NegNeg
12-0651300.73F-Pos0.11Neg0.04NegNeg
12-0741311.55F-Pos0Neg0.15NegNeg
321.17F-Pos-0.05Neg0.06NegNeg
330.43F-Pos0.05Neg0.37NegNeg
12-0757341.46F-Pos-0.04Neg0.09NegNeg
351.1F-Pos-0.17Neg0.07NegNeg
12-0855360.34Neg0.45F-Pos0.54F-PosNeg
12-134437–0.01Neg0.65F-Pos0.01NegNeg
12-2084380.22Neg0.56F-Pos0.08NegNeg
12-262139–0.12Neg0.47F-Pos0.1NegNeg
13-182840–0.07Neg0.59F-Pos0.3NegNeg
12-169241–0.07Neg0.6F-Pos0.37NegNeg
12-361642–0.12Neg0.84F-Pos0.04NegNeg
13-1852430.31Neg0.84F-Pos0.11NegNeg
13-2904440.06Neg0.46F-Pos0.06NegNeg
13-468045–0.07Neg0.52F-Pos0.26NegNeg
12-2294460.8F-Pos-0.03Neg0.21NegNeg
12-3260470.41F-Pos0.88F-Pos0.97F-PosNeg
13-1829480.64F-Pos0.36Neg0.21NegNeg
49–0.11Neg0.41F-Pos0.12NegNeg
13-1871500.59F-Pos0.23Neg0.22NegNeg
51–0.11Neg0.4F-Pos0.35NegNeg
13-213652–0.09Neg0.53F-Pos0.17NegNeg
13-093053–0.08Neg0.44F-Pos0.07NegNeg
13-1741540.23Neg0.53F-Pos0.16NegNeg
13-226255–0.25Neg0.88F-Pos0.05NegNeg
13-341256–0.12Neg0.4F-Pos0.1NegNeg
12-299457–0.11Neg0.81F-Pos0.01NegNeg
58–0.03Neg0.52F-Pos0.12NegNeg
12-3031590.01Neg0.5F-Pos0.17NegNeg
60–0.05Neg1.21F-Pos0.18NegNeg
13-1509610.51F-Pos1.03F-Pos0.63F-PosNeg
13-1676620.13Neg0.59F-Pos0.2NegNeg
63–0.25Neg0.46F-Pos0.16NegNeg
13-198764–0.1Neg0.97F-Pos0.2NegNeg
13-283665–0.06Neg1.06F-Pos0.33NegNeg
13-3315660.03Neg0.58F-Pos0.18NegNeg
67–0.07Neg0.69F-Pos0.1NegNeg
13-213468–0.08Neg0.74F-Pos0.17NegNeg
13-2462690.87F-Pos0.49F-Pos0.44F-PosNeg
13-3278700Neg0.63F-Pos0.1NegNeg
13-351371–0.11Neg0.8F-Pos0.02NegNeg
13-370772–0.06Neg0.75F-Pos0.15NegNeg
13-233073–0.01Neg0.41F-Pos0.05NegNeg
13-3481740Neg0.72F-Pos0.08NegNeg
13-4622750.18Neg0.64F-Pos0.12NegNeg
760.26Neg0.55F-Pos0.01NegNeg
13-4931771F-Pos1.48F-Pos0.23NegNeg
14-137078–0.02Neg1.28F-Pos0.02NegNeg
14-134279–0.09Neg2F-Pos0.06NegNeg
14-133580–0.03Neg0.38Neg0.21NegNeg
81–0.2Neg0.16Neg0.16NegNeg
82–0.08Neg0.3Neg0.06NegNeg
83–0.16Neg0.19Neg0.17NegNeg
14-132484–0.11Neg0.47F-Pos0.02NegNeg
14-132885–0.1Neg0.5F-Pos0.37NegNeg
14-123486–0.08Neg0.39Neg0.01NegNeg
14-120687–0.09Neg0.49F-Pos–0.01NegNeg
14-105288–0.01Neg0.34Neg–0.02NegNeg
89–0.11Neg1.1F-Pos0.04NegNeg
14-101890–0.04Neg0.96F-Pos0.01NegNeg
91–0.04Neg1.05F-Pos0.12NegNeg
92–0.07Neg0.9F-Pos0.03NegNeg
14-1002930.09Neg0.62F-Pos0.01NegNeg
14-0961940.21Neg0.46F-Pos0.1NegNeg
14-092995–0.12Neg0.43F-Pos0.11NegNeg
960.11Neg0.59F-Pos–0.11NegNeg
14-0837970.05Neg0.56F-Pos–0.11NegNeg
98–0.02Neg0.63F-Pos–0.11NegNeg
14-0700990Neg0.47F-Pos–0.11NegNeg
100–0.11Neg0.52F-Pos–0.11NegNeg

a) F-Pos; False-positive, b) Neg; Negative.

Test results from the Bionote PRRS ELISA kit using 100 samples that returned false-positive results based on either IDEXXX PRRS 2XR or 3XR ELISA. *The horizontal line indicates the cut-off value (0.4) for positivity. a) F-Pos; False-positive, b) Neg; Negative. In this study, the results obtained indicate that these two commercial kits exhibit similar sensitivities and specificities. Therefore, both PRRSV ELISA kits can complement one another for the verification of false-positive samples.
  25 in total

Review 1.  Epidemiology of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS): an overview.

Authors:  E Albina
Journal:  Vet Microbiol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.293

2.  Detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus in swine sera by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Authors:  N Takikawa; S Kobayashi; S Ide; Y Yamane; Y Tanaka; H Yamagishi
Journal:  J Vet Med Sci       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 1.267

3.  An indirect ELISA for the detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus using recombinant nucleocapsid protein as antigen.

Authors:  H Denac; C Moser; J D Tratschin; M A Hofmann
Journal:  J Virol Methods       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 2.014

4.  Genetic variation and phylogenetic relationships of 22 porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) field strains based on sequence analysis of open reading frame 5.

Authors:  V G Andreyev; R D Wesley; W L Mengeling; A C Vorwald; K M Lager
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.574

5.  A novel double recognition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay based on the nucleocapsid protein for early detection of European porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection.

Authors:  A Venteo; B Rebollo; J Sarraseca; M J Rodriguez; A Sanz
Journal:  J Virol Methods       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 2.014

6.  Characterization of the humoral immune response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus infection.

Authors:  K J Yoon; J J Zimmerman; S L Swenson; M J McGinley; K A Eernisse; A Brevik; L L Rhinehart; M L Frey; H T Hill; K B Platt
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 1.279

7.  Antigenic structure of the nucleocapsid protein of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.

Authors:  S K Wootton; E A Nelson; D Yoo
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  1998-11

8.  Serum immune responses to the proteins of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus.

Authors:  E A Nelson; J Christopher-Hennings; D A Benfield
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 1.279

9.  Evaluation of unexpected positive results from a commercial ELISA for antibodies to PRRSV.

Authors:  T Okinaga; T Yamagishi; M Yoshii; T Suzuki; A Miyazaki; M Takagi; H Tsunemitsu
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 2.695

10.  Novel structural protein in porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus encoded by an alternative ORF5 present in all arteriviruses.

Authors:  Craig R Johnson; Theodor F Griggs; Josephine Gnanandarajah; Michael P Murtaugh
Journal:  J Gen Virol       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 3.891

View more
  4 in total

1.  Antibody responses to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, influenza A virus, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from weaning to the end of the finisher stage in fourteen groups of pigs in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Elana Raaphorst; Abdolvahab Farzan; Robert M Friendship; Brandon N Lillie
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.741

2.  Comparison of the pathogenicity of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-1 and PRRSV-2 in pregnant sows.

Authors:  Chang-Gi Jeong; Salik Nazki; Seung-Chai Kim; Amina Khatun; Yun-Hee Noh; Dong-Uk Lee; Sang Chul Kang; Byoung-Joo Seo; Myeon-Sik Yang; Sim-In Lee; In-Joong Yoon; Bumseok Kim; Won-Il Kim
Journal:  Arch Virol       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 2.574

3.  Ability of ELISAs to detect antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum of pigs after inactivated vaccination and subsequent challenge.

Authors:  Tatjana Sattler; Jutta Pikalo; Eveline Wodak; Friedrich Schmoll
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 2.741

4.  OptisampleTM: Open web-based application to optimize sampling strategies for active surveillance activities at the herd level illustrated using Porcine Respiratory Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).

Authors:  Anna Alba; Robert E Morrison; Ann Cheeran; Albert Rovira; Julio Alvarez; Andres M Perez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.