| Literature DB >> 32052845 |
Geoffrey A Behrens1, Michael Brehm1, Rita Groß1, Jana Heider1, Jürgen Sauter2, Daniel M Baier2, Tatjana Wehde3, Santina Castriciano4, Alexander H Schmidt1,2, Vinzenz Lange1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Buccal swab sampling constitutes an attractive noninvasive alternative to blood drawings for antibody serostatus assays. Here we describe a method to determine the cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin G (CMV IgG) serostatus from dried buccal swab samples.Entities:
Keywords: CMV; ELISA; IgG; buccal swab; seroprevalence; swab
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 32052845 PMCID: PMC8514182 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Infect Dis ISSN: 0022-1899 Impact factor: 5.226
Figure 1.Normalization against total protein content improves assay accuracy. Correlation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) units as determined from plasma (x-axis) with swab-based units (y-axis) after normalization for total protein concentration. Samples with total protein concentration of <0.2 mg/mL were excluded. Normalization for total protein concentration reduced the proportion of false negatives and false positives (lower right/upper left quadrant).
Figure 2.Parameter optimization based on a set of 713 randomly selected samples. A, Positive/negative cutoff values: samples are grouped in bins of normalized cytomegalovirus (CMV) units. Positive/negative classification is based on plasma CMV assay. B, Minimal total protein content: samples are grouped in bins of total protein content and classified based on previously determined cutoff values.
Parameter Determination and Validation Based on 3 Sample Sets With 2497 Samples in Total
| Samples Total, No. (%) | Samples Without Result, No. (%) | Samples With Result, No. (%) | Specificity, % | Sensitivity, % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Parameter determination | |||||||||||
| 713 | 147 | 71 | 76 | 566 | 557 | 197 | 360 | 3 | 6 | ||
| (100) | (20.62) | (9.96) | (10.66) | (79.38) | |||||||
| (100) | (98.41) | (35.37) | (64.63) | (0.53) | (1.06) | 99.2 | 97.0 | ||||
| Donor drive 1 | |||||||||||
| 496 | 123 | 66 | 57 | 373 | 369 | 152 | 217 | 4 | 0 | ||
| (100) | (24.80) | (13.31) | (11.49) | (75.2) | |||||||
| (100) | (98.93) | (41.19) | (58.81) | (1.07) | (0.00) | 98.2 | 100.0 | ||||
| Donor drive 2 | |||||||||||
| 886 | 163 | 105 | 58 | 723 | 713 | 174 | 539 | 8 | 2 | ||
| (100) | (18.40) | (11.85) | (6.55) | (81.6) | |||||||
| (100) | (98.62) | (24.40) | (75.60) | (1.11) | (0.28) | 98.5 | 98.9 | ||||
| Donor drive 3 | |||||||||||
| 402 | 71 | 38 | 33 | 331 | 327 | 105 | 222 | 2 | 2 | ||
| (100) | (17.66) | (9.45) | (8.21) | (82.34) | |||||||
| (100) | (98.79) | (32.11) | (67.89) | (0.60) | (0.60) | 99.1 | 98.1 | ||||
| Total without parameter group | |||||||||||
| 1784 | 357 | 209 | 148 | 1427 | 1409 | 431 | 978 | 14 | 4 | ||
| (100) | (20.01) | (11.72) | (8.30) | (79.99) | |||||||
| (100) | (98.74) | (30.59) | (69.41) | (0.98) | (0.28) | 98.6 | 99.1 |
Performance Characteristics of Routine Samples Analyzed With the Swab Assay Determined Against Clinical CMV Results (Plasma Based)
| Country | Samples With Results, No. (%) | Specificity, % | Sensitivity, % | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Germany | 5196 (100) | 5056 (97.3) | 1982 (38.1) | 3074 (59.2) | 88 (1.7) | 52 (1.0) | 97.2 | 97.4 |
| Poland | 870 (100) | 836 (96.1) | 652 (74.9) | 184 (21.1) | 15 (1.7) | 19 (2.2) | 92.5 | 97.2 |
| United Kingdom | 292 (100) | 285 (97.6) | 140 (47.9) | 145 (49.7) | 4 (1.4) | 3 (1.0) | 97.3 | 97.9 |
| Total | 6358 (100) | 6177 (97.2) | 2774 (43.6) | 3403 (53.5) | 107 (1.7) | 74 (1.2) | 97.0 | 97.4 |
Figure 3.Cytomegalovirus prevalence in 4 countries by sex and age. Donors with self-assessed foreign origin were excluded from the analysis.