Weber B, Hess G, Enzensberger R, Harms F, Evans C J, Hamann A, Doerr H W
Abteilung für Medizinische Virologie, Universitäts-Kliniken Frankfurt, Germany.
J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Mar;30(3):691-7. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.3.691-697.1992.
A new, modular Western blot (immunoblot) system for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies (ABN WesPage; Wellcome) was compared with enzyme immunoassays (Wellcome, Behringwerke, and Abbott) and with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed Western blot (DuPont) in a multicenter study. A total of 649 serum samples from HIV patients at different stages of the disease, as well as from high-risk patients, from patients with conditions unrelated to AIDS, and from healthy blood donors, were used in the evaluation along with nine seroconversion panels. For evaluation of Western blot reactivity, both Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and FDA criteria were used. With the DuPont Western blot as the reference assay, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the ABN WesPage were 100 and 99.1%, respectively, when indeterminate results were not taken into account and when both tests were interpreted in accordance with CDC criteria. The DuPont Western blot detected significantly more antibodies to pol and gag gene products than the ABN WesPage. The ABN WesPage showed a higher positive rate of detection of viral envelope band gp160. When both Western blots were interpreted in accordance with CDC criteria, the ABN WesPage and the DuPont Western blot yielded 9.3 and 10.4% indeterminate results, respectively. When the DuPont Western blot was interpreted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (FDA criteria), 25.7% of the samples tested were regarded as indeterminate. The choice of interpretation criteria is of paramount importance for the evaluation of HIV Western blot patterns.
在一项多中心研究中,将一种用于检测人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)抗体的新型模块化蛋白质印迹法(免疫印迹法)系统(ABN WesPage;威康公司)与酶免疫测定法(威康公司、贝林werke公司和雅培公司)以及美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)许可的蛋白质印迹法(杜邦公司)进行了比较。总共使用了649份血清样本,这些样本来自处于疾病不同阶段的HIV患者、高危患者、患有与艾滋病无关疾病的患者以及健康献血者,同时还使用了9个血清转化检测板进行评估。为了评估蛋白质印迹法的反应性,采用了疾病控制中心(CDC)和FDA的标准。以杜邦蛋白质印迹法作为参考检测方法,当不考虑不确定结果且两种检测均按照CDC标准进行解读时,ABN WesPage的总体灵敏度和特异性分别为100%和99.1%。杜邦蛋白质印迹法检测到的针对pol和gag基因产物的抗体明显多于ABN WesPage。ABN WesPage检测病毒包膜带gp160的阳性率更高。当两种蛋白质印迹法均按照CDC标准进行解读时,ABN WesPage和杜邦蛋白质印迹法的不确定结果分别为9.3%和10.4%。当按照制造商的说明(FDA标准)对杜邦蛋白质印迹法进行解读时,25.7%的检测样本被视为不确定。解读标准的选择对于评估HIV蛋白质印迹法图谱至关重要。