Kittelberger Reinhold, McFadden Andrew M J, Kirkland Peter D, Hannah Michaela J, Orr Della, Bueno Rudolfo, Swainsbury Richard, Keen Denise, Jenner Judy, French Jennifer, Pigott Clive J
1Reinhold Kittelberger, Investigation and Diagnostic Centres and Response, Wallaceville, Ministry for Primary Industries, PO Box 40742, Upper Hutt 5140, New
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2013 Sep;25(5):645-8. doi: 10.1177/1040638713500496. Epub 2013 Aug 13.
In New Zealand, an arbovirus surveillance program has been operating for more than 20 years, which includes testing of cattle with the Akabane virus neutralization test. With the aim to replace this laborious test by an easier-to-perform enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), 2 commercial ELISA kits, ELISA-1 from France (originally from Australia) and ELISA-2 from Japan, were compared, using 334 serum samples from noninfected New Zealand cattle, and 548 serum samples from naturally infected cattle herds in Australia. Diagnostic specificities for the test methods were high, ranging from 99.4% to 100%. The diagnostic sensitivities varied considerably between the test methods and differed from the values reported by the manufacturers (94% for each ELISA). The diagnostic sensitivities relative to the virus neutralization test (n = 378) were 96.0% for ELISA-1 or 98.9% when suspect samples were included, and 78.0% for ELISA-2. Differences in the commercial ELISA kits may be explained by the presence of other Simbu serogroup viruses in Australian cattle herds, causing cross-reactions in ELISA-1. Both commercial ELISA kits would be fit for purpose and could replace the virus neutralization test for Akabane virus surveillance in New Zealand. ELISA-1 may be able to detect other Simbu serogroup viruses, should they be present. The current study shows that despite comparable ELISA test characteristics given by the manufacturers, evaluation on the target population revealed marked differences in the ELISA kits test methods' characteristics.
在新西兰，一项虫媒病毒监测计划已实施了20多年，其中包括用赤羽病毒中和试验对牛进行检测。为了用一种更易于操作的酶联免疫吸附测定法（ELISA）取代这项繁琐的检测，对两种商用ELISA试剂盒进行了比较，一种是来自法国（原产于澳大利亚）的ELISA - 1，另一种是来自日本的ELISA - 2，使用了334份来自未感染的新西兰牛的血清样本，以及548份来自澳大利亚自然感染牛群的血清样本。这些检测方法的诊断特异性很高，范围在99.4%至100%之间。诊断敏感性在不同检测方法之间差异很大，并且与制造商报告的值（每种ELISA为94%）不同。相对于病毒中和试验（n = 378），ELISA - 1的诊断敏感性为96.0%，若包括可疑样本则为98.9%，而ELISA - 2为78.0%。商用ELISA试剂盒之间的差异可能是由于澳大利亚牛群中存在其他辛布血清群病毒，导致ELISA - 1出现交叉反应。两种商用ELISA试剂盒都符合要求，并且可以取代用于新西兰赤羽病毒监测的病毒中和试验。如果存在其他辛布血清群病毒，ELISA - 1也许能够检测到它们。当前研究表明，尽管制造商给出的ELISA检测特征具有可比性，但对目标人群的评估显示，ELISA试剂盒检测方法的特征存在显著差异。
