Webber L M, Els S, Taylor M B, Grabow W O
Department of Medical Virology, University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
J Clin Pathol. 1996 Dec;49(12):994-7. doi: 10.1136/jcp.49.12.994.
To assess a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the serotyping of hepatitis C virus (HCV) for routine use in a diagnostic laboratory setting, as well as for noting the serotype prevalence of selected specimens.
Seventy six serum specimens, submitted to the laboratory for routine hepatitis studies between May 1992 and February 1996 and stored at -20 degrees C, were evaluated. These specimens were categorised into specific hepatic, renal, and paediatric clinical conditions. The specimens all tested positive for HCV antibodies on a screening EIA, with confirmation on a recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA). Certain specimens were also HCV RNA positive by the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). All the specimens were serotyped using the newly developed serotyping EIA.
Twenty seven (35.5%) specimens were typable. Type 5 predominated (56%), followed by type 1 (33%), types 1 and 6 (7%) and type 3 (4%). The serotype 5 specimens showed 85% and 90% reactivity with recombinant antigens c100-3 and c22-3c, respectively; serotype 1 specimens showed 75% and 100% reactivity with these antigens. All serotype 5 specimens reacted with the c33-c antigen, but only 60% of serotype 1 specimens reacted with this antigen. The differences in the reactivity of the serotype 5 and serotype 1 specimens for c33-c antigen in the RIBA were significant, but no significant differences in reactivity for antigens c-1-1, c100-3, and c22-3 were noted. Serotype 3 specimens showed equal reactivity with all four antigens used in the RIBA.
The serotyping EIA was easy to use, rapid, and cost effective compared with molecular assays. This assay seems to be ideal for the routine diagnostic laboratory setting, but could not be used for certain clinical specimens. The demonstration of serotypes 5, 1, and 3 was not unexpected in this cohort. The occurrence of serotype 6, although concurrent and more likely to be a false cross reaction with serotype 1 peptides, requires confirmation by molecular genotyping before it can be claimed that this type is present in South Africa.
评估一种用于丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)血清分型的商业酶免疫测定(EIA),以便在诊断实验室环境中常规使用,并记录选定标本的血清型流行情况。
对1992年5月至1996年2月间提交至实验室进行常规肝炎研究并储存在-20℃的76份血清标本进行评估。这些标本被分类为特定的肝脏、肾脏和儿科临床病症。所有标本在筛查EIA中HCV抗体检测均呈阳性,并通过重组免疫印迹测定(RIBA)进行确认。部分标本通过逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测HCV RNA也呈阳性。所有标本均使用新开发的血清分型EIA进行血清分型。
27份(35.5%)标本可进行分型。5型占主导(56%),其次是1型(33%)、1型和6型(7%)以及3型(4%)。5型血清标本与重组抗原c100-3和c22-3c的反应性分别为85%和90%;1型血清标本与这些抗原的反应性分别为75%和100%。所有5型血清标本均与c33-c抗原发生反应,但只有60%的1型血清标本与该抗原发生反应。5型和1型血清标本在RIBA中对c33-c抗原反应性的差异具有显著性,但在对c-1-1、c100-3和c22-3抗原的反应性方面未观察到显著差异。3型血清标本对RIBA中使用的所有四种抗原的反应性相同。
与分子检测方法相比,血清分型EIA易于使用、快速且具有成本效益。该检测方法似乎适用于常规诊断实验室环境,但不适用于某些临床标本。在该队列中5型、1型和3型血清型的出现并不意外。6型血清型的出现,尽管是同时发生且更可能是与1型肽的假交叉反应,但在声称南非存在该血清型之前,需要通过分子基因分型进行确认。