| Literature DB >> 30486820 |
Yeong-Lim Kang1, Ji-Yun Jeong1, Hwi-Yeon Choi1, Yanhong Zhang2, Yumei Liu2, Ho-Jong Lee1, Jong-Chul Choi1, So-Hyun Lee1, Beom-Joo Lee1, Sang-Won Lee1, Joong-Bok Lee1, Ki-Hyun Cho3, Seung-Yong Park4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) can be controlled by either stamping out or vaccination, a choice which depends on both the economic importance of the livestock sector as well as the disease status. In FMD-free countries with vaccination, such as Korea, vaccination programs should guarantee prevention against transmission of FMD. Monitoring of vaccination programs is also essential for ensuring sufficient coverage that will limit the transmission of FMDV. There are several methods to screen FMD virus (FMDV) structural protein (SP) antibodies including SPCE (Solid-phase competitive ELISA), LPBE (Liquid-phase blocking ELISA), and VNT (Virus neutralization test). Among these, SPCE is widely used for serological monitoring since VNT-the gold standard method-has certain practical limitations, such as high costs in terms of time and labor. However, whether SPCE can ensure the vaccination status of individual animals and whole farms is unclear. In this study, SPCE, LPBE and VNT were compared with respect to correlation with each other and sensitivity at commercial pig farms.Entities:
Keywords: Foot-and-mouth disease; Liquid-phase blocking ELISA; Serological monitoring; Solid-phase competitive ELISA; Vaccination coverage; Virus neutralization test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30486820 PMCID: PMC6260702 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1686-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1a–f Progression of antibody response (a–c) and vaccination coverage (d–f) determined by SPCE, LPBE, and VNT. Data for group I (a, d), group II (b, e), and group III (c, f) are shown. The arrow indicates the timing of vaccination. Results of SPCE are expressed as PI, while those of LPBE and VNT are expressed as a logarithmic titer. Criteria for positivity by SPCE, LPBE, and VNT are 50%, 1/64 (1.81 log10), and 1/45 (1.65 log10), respectively. The results of average titer are presented as mean ± SD (n = 60). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 2a–d Scatter plots and calculated regression lines between SPCE and LPBE (a, b) and between SPCE and VNT (c, d). Scatter plots show PI ratio of SPCE on the x-axis and logarithmic titer of LPBE or VNT on the y-axis. Dotted line represents the cut-off value for each test (1.17, SPCE; 1.81, LPBE; and 1.65, VNT)
The Pearson correlation among SP antibody test methods
| SPCE | LPBE | VNT/XJ | VNT/GX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPCE | 1 | 0.719 | 0.761 | 0.662 |
| LPBE | 1 | 0.783 | 0.777 | |
| VNT/XJ | 1 | 0.803 | ||
| VNT/GX | 1 |
*All correlation values are significant at a confidence level of 0.001 (2-tailed)
Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of SPCE with LPBE, VNT/XJ and VNT/GX
| Method | LPBE | VNT/XJ | VNT/GX | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | |
| SPCE | Positive | 531 | 147 | 514 | 164 | 336 | 342 |
| Negative | 25 | 251 | 19 | 257 | 9 | 267 | |
| Cohen’s kappa | 0.612 | 0.596 | 0.340 | ||||
| Overall concordance (%) | 82.0 | 80.8 | 63.2 | ||||
| False positive (%) | 21.7 | 24.2 | 50.4 | ||||
| False negative (%) | 9.1 | 6.9 | 3.3 | ||||
Fig. 3ROC curve analysis of results of individual SP antibody tests. The AUC is shown for each graph, with the 95% confidence interval in parentheses