Literature DB >> 6752160

A comparison of antibody capture radio- and enzyme immunoassays with immunofluorescence for detecting IgM antibody in infants with congenital rubella.

S Chantler, C J Evans, P P Mortimer, J E Cradock-Watson, M K Ridehalgh.   

Abstract

IgM antibody capture radioimmunoassay (MACRIA) and enzyme immunoassay (MACEIA) were compared with immunofluorescence (IF) for detecting specific IgM antibody in 99 sera from 76 infants with confirmed congenital rubella, and 61 sera from a comparative group of 59 infants who had miscellaneous abnormalities but in whom congenital rubella was not confirmed. All of 35 specimens collected from confirmed cases within 12 weeks of birth were positive by all three methods and all but one of 17 specimens collected after the age of 18 months were uniformly negative. At intermediate ages discrepancies occurred in 18 specimens, of which eight were positive and 10 negative by IF. Three of these 18 specimens were negative by both antibody capture procedures but showed weak fluorescence; the other 15 were negative by MACEIA, but positive by MACRIA which appears to be the more sensitive of the antibody capture methods. Sera from five infants in the comparative group were clearly positive by all three methods. These five infants were probably congenitally infected with rubella. Sera from the other 54 infants were negative, except for one that gave a weakly positive result by MACRIA alone. Antibody capture procedures offer several advantages over previous methods for detecting IgM antibody. Although MACRIA was found to be slightly more sensitive than MACEIA, the greater stability of the enzyme label, together with the possibility of both visual and quantitative assessment, could make MACEIA the method of choice for detecting rubella-specific IgM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6752160     DOI: 10.1016/0166-0934(82)90055-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Virol Methods        ISSN: 0166-0934            Impact factor:   2.014


  7 in total

Review 1.  Laboratory diagnosis of rubella: past, present and future.

Authors:  J E Cradock-Watson
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 2.451

2.  Comparison of four enzyme immunoassays for detection of immunoglobulin M antibodies against rubella virus.

Authors:  L Matter; M Gorgievski-Hrisoho; D Germann
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Screening for anti-rubella IgM ad libitum.

Authors:  P P Mortimer; R S Tedder
Journal:  J Hyg (Lond)       Date:  1983-02

4.  Public Health Laboratory Service IgM antibody capture enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for detecting rubella specific IgM.

Authors:  K Bellamy; J Hodgson; P S Gardner; P Morgan-Capner
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Evaluation of a commercial antibody capture enzyme immunoassay for the detection of rubella specific IgM.

Authors:  J Hodgson; P Morgan-Capner
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Use of monoclonal antibodies to human immunoglobulin M in "capture" assays for measles and rubella immunoglobulin M.

Authors:  B Forghani; C K Myoraku; N J Schmidt
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Modeling the impact of rubella vaccination in Vietnam.

Authors:  Emilia Vynnycky; Lay Myint Yoshida; Dang Thi Thanh Huyen; Nguyen Dac Trung; Kohei Toda; Nguyen Van Cuong; Duong Thi Hong; Koya Ariyoshi; Masami Miyakawa; Hiroyuki Moriuchi; Le Huu Tho; Hien Anh Nguyen; Dang Duc Anh; Mark Jit; Nguyen Tran Hien
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 3.452

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.