Institute of Diagnostic Virology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Südufer 10, 17493, Greifswald - Insel Riems, Germany.
BMC Vet Res. 2022 May 6;18(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03265-w.
Control programs were implemented in several countries against bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), one of the most significant cattle diseases worldwide. Most of the programs rely on serological diagnostics in any phase of the program. For the detection of antibodies against BVD virus (BVDV), neutralization tests as well as a variety of (commercially available) ELISAs are used. Here, test systems applied in various laboratories were evaluated in the context of an international interlaboratory proficiency trial. A panel of standardized samples comprising five sera and five milk samples was sent to veterinary diagnostic laboratories (n=51) and test kit manufacturers (n=3).
The ring trial sample panel was investigated by nine commercially available antibody ELISAs as well as by neutralization tests against diverse BVDV-1, BVDV-2 and/or border disease virus (BDV) strains. The negative serum and milk sample as well as a serum collected after BVDV-2 infection were mostly correctly tested regardless of the applied test system. A serum sample obtained from an animal immunized with an inactivated BVDV-1 vaccine tested positive by neutralization tests or by total antibody or E-based ELISAs, while all applied NS3-based ELISAs gave negative results. A further serum, containing antibodies against the ovine BDV, reacted positive in all applied BVDV ELISAs, a differentiation between anti-BDV and anti-BVDV antibodies was only enabled by parallel application of neutralization tests against BVDV and BDV isolates. For the BVDV antibody-positive milk samples (n=4), which mimicked prevalences of 20% (n=2) or 50% (n=2), considerable differences in the number of positive results were observed, which mainly depended on the ELISA kit and the sample incubation protocols used. These 4 milk samples tested negative in 43.6%, 50.9%, 3.6% and 56.4%, respectively, of all investigations. Overall, negative results occurred more often, when a short sample incubation protocol instead of an over-night protocol was applied.
While the seronegative samples were correctly evaluated in most cases, there were considerable differences in the number of correct evaluations for the seropositive samples, most notably when pooled milk samples were tested. Hence, thorough validation and careful selection of ELISA tests are necessary, especially when applied during surveillance programs in BVD-free regions.
牛病毒性腹泻(BVD)是全球最重要的牛病之一,为此多个国家实施了控制计划。大多数计划在计划的任何阶段都依赖血清学诊断。为了检测针对 BVD 病毒(BVDV)的抗体,中和试验以及各种(市售)ELISA 都被使用。在这里,在国际实验室间能力验证试验的背景下,评估了在各个实验室中应用的测试系统。一组包含五个血清和五个牛奶样本的标准化样本被发送给兽医诊断实验室(n=51)和测试试剂盒制造商(n=3)。
该轮试验样本组由九种市售的抗体 ELISA 以及针对不同的 BVDV-1、BVDV-2 和/或边界病病毒(BDV)株的中和试验进行了检测。阴性血清和牛奶样本以及在 BVDV-2 感染后采集的血清,无论使用哪种测试系统,都得到了正确的检测。从用 BVDV-1 灭活疫苗免疫的动物中采集的血清样本,经中和试验或总抗体或 E 基 ELISA 检测呈阳性,而所有应用的 NS3 基 ELISA 则呈阴性。另一份含有抗绵羊 BDV 抗体的血清,在所有应用的 BVDV ELISA 中均呈阳性反应,只有通过对 BVDV 和 BDV 分离株进行平行应用的中和试验,才能区分抗-BDV 和抗-BVDV 抗体。对于 BVDV 抗体阳性的牛奶样本(n=4),其模拟了 20%(n=2)或 50%(n=2)的流行率,在阳性结果的数量上观察到了相当大的差异,这主要取决于 ELISA 试剂盒和样本孵育方案的使用。这 4 个牛奶样本在所有检测中,分别有 43.6%、50.9%、3.6%和 56.4%的结果为阴性。总体而言,当应用短时间的样本孵育方案而不是整夜孵育方案时,出现阴性结果的频率更高。
虽然在大多数情况下,阴性样本得到了正确的评估,但对于阳性样本的正确评估数量存在显著差异,尤其是在对混合牛奶样本进行检测时。因此,特别是在 BVD 无疫区的监测计划中应用时,需要对 ELISA 测试进行彻底验证和仔细选择。