Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1985 Jan;21(1):140–142. doi: 10.1128/jcm.21.1.140-142.1985

Comparison of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, hemagglutination inhibition, and passive latex agglutination for determination of rubella immune status.

R S Steece, M S Talley, M R Skeels, G A Lanier
PMCID: PMC271594  PMID: 3968201

Abstract

Hemagglutination inhibition, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and passive latex agglutination were used to test 495 human serum samples for determination of rubella immunity. Overall agreements for immune status were as follows: hemagglutination inhibition versus ELISA, 94.7% (469 of 495); hemagglutination inhibition versus passive latex agglutination (1:10 dilution), 99.2% (491 of 495); and passive latex agglutination (1:10 dilution) versus ELISA, 94.7% (469 of 495). Both ELISA and passive latex agglutination are satisfactory for rubella immunity screening, with the reservation that the ELISA method examined yielded a large number of false-negative results.

Full text

PDF
140

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Kleeman K. T., Kiefer D. J., Halbert S. P. Rubella antibodies detected by several commercial immunoassays in hemagglutination inhibition-negative sera. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Nov;18(5):1131–1137. doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.5.1131-1137.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Meegan J. M., Evans B. K., Horstmann D. M. Comparison of the latex agglutination test with the hemagglutination inhibition test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and neutralization test for detection of antibodies to rubella virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Oct;16(4):644–649. doi: 10.1128/jcm.16.4.644-649.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Meegan J. M., Evans B. K., Horstmann D. M. Use of enzyme immunoassays and the latex agglutination test to measure the temporal appearance of immunoglobulin G and M antibodies after natural infection or immunization with rubella virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Sep;18(3):745–748. doi: 10.1128/jcm.18.3.745-748.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Shekarchi I. C., Sever J. L., Tzan N., Ley A., Ward L. C., Madden D. Comparison of hemagglutination inhibition test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for determining antibody to rubella virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1981 May;13(5):850–854. doi: 10.1128/jcm.13.5.850-854.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Skendzel L. P., Wilcox K. R., Edson D. C. Evaluation of assays for the detection of antibodies to rubella. A report based on data from the College of American Pathologists Surveys of 1982. Am J Clin Pathol. 1983 Oct;80(4 Suppl):594–598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Steece R. S., Talley M. S., Skeels M. R., Lanier G. A. Problems in determining immune status in borderline specimens in an enzyme immunoassay for rubella immunoglobulin G antibody. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Jun;19(6):923–925. doi: 10.1128/jcm.19.6.923-925.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES