| Literature DB >> 29373971 |
Junwei Ge1,2, Xingyang Cui1, Yunjia Shi1, Lili Zhao3, Chengwei Wei1, Shanshan Wen1, Shuang Xia1, Hongyan Chen4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mink circovirus (MiCV) is a newly discovered pathogen associated with mink diarrhea. The prevalence and economic importance of this virus remain poorly understood, and no specific serological assay has been developed for the diagnosis of MiCV infection.Entities:
Keywords: Capsid protein; Indirect ELISA; Mink circovirus; Prokaryotic expression; Serological survey
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29373971 PMCID: PMC5787310 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1337-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1SDS-PAGE analysis of the rCap fusion protein. Lane M: protein molecular weight marker; Lane 1: Rosetta control; Lane 2: pET32a vector control; Lane 3: pET32a–cap bacterial lysate; Lane 4: Purified fusion protein
Fig. 2Western blot was performed with MiCV positive sera (Anti-MiCV), Anti-6xHis HRP conjugated (Anti-6xHis) or MiCV negative sera control (NC). Lane M: protein molecular weight marker; Lane 1: Purified protein rCap; Lane 2: pET32a vector control
Ratio of MiCV-positive serum to MiCV-negative serum for the optimization of assay conditions for the ELISA against recombinant rCap antigen
| Serum dilution | Concentration of rCap antigen (μg/well) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | |
| 1:25(+) | 0.806 | 1.056 | 1.048 | 0.969 | 0.89 | 0.742 |
| 1:25(−) | 0.108 | 0.166 | 0.16 | 0.153 | 0.133 | 0.104 |
| 1:50(+) | 0.876 | 1.175 | 1.044 | 0.967 | 0.888 | 0.78 |
| 1:50(−) | 0.175 | 0.116 | 0.144 | 0.12 | 0.116 | 0.09 |
| 1:100(+) | 0.753 | 1.078 | 1.063 | 0.964 | 0.895 | 0.737 |
| 1:100(−) | 0.096 | 0.121 | 0.129 | 0.1 | 0.114 | 0.089 |
| 1:200(+) | 0.971 | 1.119 | 1.065 |
| 0.801 | 0.767 |
| 1:200(−) | 0.113 | 0.127 | 0.15 |
| 0.097 | 0.088 |
| 1:400(+) | 0.681 | 0.724 | 0.807 | 0.779 | 0.821 | 0.638 |
| 1:400(−) | 0.094 | 0.068 | 0.111 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.068 |
Optimum values with the best positive-to-negative ratio are highlighted
Results of cross test of indirect ELISA
| Serum sample | Value of OD450 |
|---|---|
| MiCV(+) | 1.451 |
| MiCV(−) | 0.137 |
| Blank control | 0.109 |
| AMDV | 0.121 |
| MEV | 0.154 |
| CDV | 0.161 |
| PRV | 0.098 |
| CAV-2 | 0.135 |
|
| 0.113 |
|
| 0.201 |
|
| 0.208 |
Fig. 3Western blot analysis of the rCap fusion protein. Lane M: protein molecular weight marker; Lane 1:Positive serum control; Lane 2: Negative serum control; Lane 3: Serum 1;Lane 4: Serum 2; Lane 5: Serum 3; Lane 6: Serum 4; Lane 7: Serum 5; Lane 8: Serum 6
Repeatability and reproducibility analysis of indirect ELISA
| Sample | Intra-assay(OD450) | Inter-assay(OD450) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Mean | SD | CV% | 1 | 2 | 3 | Mean | SD | CV% | |
| 1 | 0.382 | 0.401 | 0.432 | 0.405 | 0.025 | 6.23 | 0.386 | 0.413 | 0.411 | 0.403 | 0.015 | 3.73 |
| 2 | 0.641 | 0.664 | 0.594 | 0.633 | 0.036 | 5.64 | 0.604 | 0.656 | 0.693 | 0.651 | 0.045 | 6.87 |
| 3 | 0.471 | 0.487 | 0.468 | 0.475 | 0.010 | 2.15 | 0.459 | 0.466 | 0.481 | 0.469 | 0.011 | 2.40 |
| 4 | 0.282 | 0.271 | 0.256 | 0.270 | 0.013 | 4.84 | 0.248 | 0.281 | 0.243 | 0.257 | 0.021 | 8.02 |
| 5 | 0.244 | 0.261 | 0.252 | 0.252 | 0.009 | 3.37 | 0.253 | 0.258 | 0.225 | 0.245 | 0.018 | 7.25 |
| 6 | 0.180 | 0.194 | 0.188 | 0.187 | 0.007 | 3.75 | 0.182 | 0.195 | 0.194 | 0.190 | 0.007 | 3.80 |
Comparison of the ELISA and Western blot test
| Western blot results | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ELISA results | Positive | Negative | Total |
| Positive | 72 | 5 | 77 |
| Negative | 6 | 55 | 61 |
| Total | 78 | 60 | 138 |
| Total (% coincidence) | 92.31(72/78) | 91.67(55/60) | 92.03(127/138) |
Fig. 4Geographical distribution of the sampled mink farms. The area covers 5 provinces in China: (a) Heilongjiang, (b) Jilin, (c) Liaoning, (d) Hebei, and (e) Shandong. The farms are marked with circles, squares, and triangles
Detection of MiCV-specific antibody in sera from breeder minks
| Province | Farm | Number positive/number tested | Positive rate(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heilongjiang | 1 | 7/62 | 11.29 |
| 2 | 9/31 | 29.03 | |
| 3 | 0/34 | 0 | |
| 4 | 6/23 | 47.83 | |
| 5 | 0/21 | 0 | |
| 6 | 5/36 | 13.89 | |
| Shandong | 1 | 1/43 | 2.33 |
| 2 | 13/29 | 44.83 | |
| 3 | 14/19 | 73.68 | |
| 4 | 11/31 | 35.48 | |
| 5 | 4/30 | 13.33 | |
| 6 | 2/16 | 12.50 | |
| Hebei | 1 | 16/39 | 41.03 |
| 2 | 6/33 | 18.18 | |
| 3 | 9/27 | 33.33 | |
| 4 | 14/22 | 63.64 | |
| 5 | 2/18 | 11.11 | |
| Liaoning | 1 | 14/26 | 53.85 |
| 2 | 0/17 | 0 | |
| 3 | 7/33 | 21.21 | |
| 4 | 6/32 | 18.75 | |
| Jilin | 1 | 14/32 | 45.16 |
| 2 | 1/12 | 8.33 | |
| 3 | 2/17 | 11.76 | |
| Total | 163/683 | 23.87 |
Fig. 5Anti-MiCV antibody titres in positive and negative mink serum samples. Positive and negative mink serum samples were prepared in dilutions of 1:200, 1:400, 1:800, 1:1600 and 1:3200 used in an ELISA assay. The cut-off value cutoff was determined by counting the mean OD value of the ELISA negative samples plus 3 standard deviation (SD)