Bürki F, Rossmanith E
Institute of Virology of the Veterinary University, Vienna, Austria.
Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1990 Aug;37(6):448-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0450.1990.tb01082.x.
Selected sets of serum samples of horses were tested blindly in a comparative investigation for antibodies against Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) virus. Three commercial kits were used, a well-established agar-gel immuno-diffusion kit which our laboratory has been using routinely for 14 years on one hand, a competitive ELISA kit (CELISA) and a non-competitive ELISA kit on the other hand. The American EIA Reference Laboratory in Ames cotested 56 serum samples with the same 3 products, with highest-level correlation, thereby ascertaining full dependability of our own results. Five EIA experts supplied us critically weak or doubtfully reacting serum samples of experimentally infected horses together with their own test results, by necessity limited to the then available AGID in most instances. A high degree of correlation was found between our and their AGID results. In our own laboratory good correlation was found between the AGID test and one lot of the CELISA product. Time of seroconversion was coincident in some experimentally infected horses, partly AGID, partly CELISA proved more sensitive. Another lot of the CELISA product deteriorated completely long before the warranted validity, an unpleasant finding experienced by many other laboratories alike. The non-competitive ELISA product showed unacceptable inter-lot differences, oscillation between positive and negative results on consecutive samples of one and the same horse, never reacted with the weak positive International Reference Serum, and one lot deteriorated well beyond its expiration date. We discuss our results with the background: high sensitivity versus false-positive horses and advocate to maintain at their present sensitivity levels the AGID and the CELISA tests and not to push them further, as would be technically possible.
在一项针对马传染性贫血（EIA）病毒抗体的比较研究中，对选定的马血清样本集进行了盲测。使用了三种商业试剂盒，一方面是我们实验室常规使用了14年的成熟的琼脂凝胶免疫扩散试剂盒，另一方面是竞争ELISA试剂盒（CELISA）和非竞争ELISA试剂盒。艾姆斯的美国EIA参考实验室用相同的三种产品对56份血清样本进行了共同检测，相关性极高，从而确定了我们自己结果的完全可靠性。五名EIA专家向我们提供了实验感染马的临界弱阳性或反应存疑的血清样本以及他们自己的检测结果，在大多数情况下，检测结果必然限于当时可用的AGID。我们的AGID结果与他们的结果之间发现了高度相关性。在我们自己的实验室中，AGID检测与一批CELISA产品之间发现了良好的相关性。在一些实验感染的马中，血清转化时间是一致的，部分情况下AGID更敏感，部分情况下CELISA更敏感。另一批CELISA产品在保证有效期之前就完全变质了，许多其他实验室也都遇到过这种令人不快的情况。非竞争ELISA产品表现出不可接受的批次间差异，同一匹马的连续样本在阳性和阴性结果之间波动，从未与弱阳性国际参考血清发生反应，而且有一批产品在过期后很久仍变质。我们结合高灵敏度与假阳性马的背景讨论了我们的结果，并主张维持AGID和CELISA检测目前的灵敏度水平，而不是像技术上可行的那样进一步提高它们的灵敏度。
