van der Avoort H G, Hull B P, Hovi T, Pallansch M A, Kew O M, Crainic R, Wood D J, Mulders M N, van Loon A M
Laboratory of Virology, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Rijksinstituut voor Volkgezondheid en Milieuhygiëne, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Oct;33(10):2562-6. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.10.2562-2566.1995.
A coded panel of 90 poliovirus isolates, 30 of each of the three known serotypes, was used to evaluate five methods for the intratypic differentiation of polioviruses: (i) an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with polyclonal cross-absorbed antisera (PAb-E), (ii) a neutralization assay with type-specific monoclonal antibodies (MAb-N), (iii) a restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay, (iv) a Sabin vaccine strain-specific PCR assay, and (v) a Sabin vaccine strain-specific cRNA probe hybridization (ProHyb) assay. Sequence analysis was used for the definitive characterization of the strains. The panel was distributed to five laboratories; each laboratory analyzed the strains by at least two methods. Each method was used by three or four laboratories. The total performance scores (percentage correct results per number of tests) of the five methods were 96.7% for PAb-E, 93.9% for MAb-N, 91.9% for RFLP assay, 93.3% for Sabin vaccine strain-specific PCR, and 97.4% for Sabin vaccine strain-specific ProHyb. Consistent results were obtained by each laboratory for 88 of 90 isolates (97.8%) examined by PAb-E, 81 of 90 isolates (90.0%) examined by MAb-N, 78 of 90 isolates (86.7%) examined by RFLP assay, 81 of 90 isolates (90.0%) examined by PCR, and 89 of 90 isolates (98.9%) examined by ProHyb assay. Six strains were classified differently by different methods. It is recommended that at least two methods be used for the intratypic differentiation of poliovirus isolates, and each method should be based on a different principle (i.e., antigenic properties and nucleotide sequence composition). If two assays yield discrepant results, further characterization, preferably by partial sequence determination, will be required for correct identification.
使用一组由90株脊髓灰质炎病毒分离株组成的编码样本(三种已知血清型各30株)来评估脊髓灰质炎病毒型内鉴别诊断的五种方法:(i) 使用多克隆交叉吸收抗血清的酶联免疫吸附测定法(PAb-E);(ii) 使用型特异性单克隆抗体的中和测定法(MAb-N);(iii) 限制性片段长度多态性(RFLP)测定法;(iv) 萨宾疫苗株特异性PCR测定法;(v) 萨宾疫苗株特异性cRNA探针杂交(ProHyb)测定法。序列分析用于菌株的确切鉴定。该样本分发给了五个实验室;每个实验室至少用两种方法分析这些菌株。每种方法由三到四个实验室使用。五种方法的总性能得分(每次测试正确结果的百分比)分别为:PAb-E为96.7%,MAb-N为93.9%,RFLP测定法为۹۱.۹%,萨宾疫苗株特异性PCR为93.3%,萨宾疫苗株特异性ProHyb为97.4%。对于PAb-E检测的90株分离株中的88株(97.8%)、MAb-N检测的90株分离株中的81株(90.0%)、RFLP测定法检测的90株分离株中的78株(86.7%)、PCR检测的90株分离株中的81株(90.0%)以及ProHyb测定法检测的90株分离株中的89株(98.9%),每个实验室都获得了一致的结果。有6株菌株通过不同方法得到了不同的分类。建议至少使用两种方法进行脊髓灰质炎病毒分离株的型内鉴别诊断,并且每种方法应基于不同的原理(即抗原特性和核苷酸序列组成)。如果两种检测结果不一致,则需要进一步鉴定,最好通过部分序列测定来进行正确识别。