Institut de Microbiologie et Service des Maladies Infectieuses, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Faculté de Biologie et Médecine, Rue du Bugnon 48, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Dec;16(12):1776-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03204.x.
We have compared a multiplexed bead-based assay (BBA) with an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for the assessment of the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serostatus. Three hundred and ninety-three sera, classified according to IFA results as seronegative (n=100), acute infection (n=100), past infection (n=100) and indeterminate (n=93), were tested by BBA and EIA. Overall, the three methods gave similar results with a relatively high (75.2%) concordance with the consensus interpretation of the serostatus. The most significant discordances were: (i) 58 samples had uninterpretable results for BBA, in majority due to the detection of non-antigen specific antibody binding by control beads. (ii) almost half the samples positive for anti-Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA) IgG by BBA or EIA were negative by IFA. Among the latter, only a minority had a history of immunocompromise or treatment, or detectable anti-early antigen antibody. This discrepancy probably reflects a poor sensitivity of IFA for anti-EBNA IgG detection. EIA and BBA had a similar performance and had substantial practical advantages over IFA with respect to testing for EBV serostatus.
我们比较了多重微球检测(BBA)与酶免疫测定(EIA)和免疫荧光检测(IFA),用于评估 Epstein-Barr 病毒(EBV)的血清状态。根据 IFA 结果,我们将 393 份血清分为血清阴性(n=100)、急性感染(n=100)、既往感染(n=100)和不确定(n=93),并用 BBA 和 EIA 进行检测。总体而言,三种方法的结果相似,与血清状态的共识解释具有较高的一致性(75.2%)。最显著的差异是:(i)58 份 BBA 检测结果不可解释,主要是由于检测到非抗原特异性抗体与对照微球结合。(ii)BBA 或 EIA 检测抗 Epstein-Barr 核抗原(EBNA)IgG 阳性的几乎一半样本在 IFA 检测中为阴性。在后者中,只有少数有免疫功能低下或治疗史,或可检测到抗早期抗原抗体。这种差异可能反映了 IFA 检测抗 EBNA IgG 的敏感性较差。EIA 和 BBA 的性能相似,在 EBV 血清状态检测方面具有比 IFA 实质性的实际优势。