Abstract
Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) is currently the most widely used technique for the determination of rubella immune status. However, two new methods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and indirect immunofluorescence (FIAX), have also been adapted for this purpose. In comparing a commercially available ELISA system (BIO-BEAD, Litton Bionetics) with an HAI system (RUBA-tect, Abbott Laboratories), some ELISA-positive sera were found to be rubella antibody negative by the HAI system. To determine which of these results more accurately reflected the immune status of the patient, 74 RUBA-tect-negative sera were retested by ELISA BIO-BEAD, FIAX (International Diagnostic Technology) and by modified HAI, employing fresh erythrocytes (using Flow Laboratories reagents). Eleven RUBA-tect-negative sera (15%) were positive by ELISA, FIAX, and modified HAI. Two sera were positive only by ELISA and FIAX, two sera were positive by ELISA and HAI, four sera were positive by ELISA only, and one serum was positive by FIAX only. Neutralization assays were subsequently performed on sera positive by only one or two of the procedures to determine the presence of protective rubella antibodies in these sera; all but three of the sera were positive for neutralizing antibody. Commercial ELISA and FIAX systems appear to be more sensitive indicators of rubella immune status than are commercial HAI kits which use stabilized erythrocytes. Neither ELISA nor FIAX require extraction of serum; moreover, the ELISA BIO-BEAD test assay can be performed without an expensive instrument for reading.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Buimovici-Klein E., O'Beirne A. J., Millian S. J., Cooper L. Z. Low level rubella immunity detected by ELISA and specific lymphocyte transformation. Arch Virol. 1980;66(4):321–327. doi: 10.1007/BF01320628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Castellano G. A., Madden D. L., Hazzard G. T., Cleghorn C. S., Vails D. V., Ley A. C., Tzan N. R., Sever J. L. Evaluation of commercially available diagnostic test kits for rubella. J Infect Dis. 1981 Apr;143(4):578–584. doi: 10.1093/infdis/143.4.578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Field A. M., Vandervelde E. M., Thompson K. M., Hutchinson D. N. A comparison of the haemagglutination-inhibition test and the neutralisation test for the detection of rubella antibody. Lancet. 1967 Jul 22;2(7508):182–184. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(67)90006-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schluederberg A., Horstmann D. M., Andiman W. A., Randolph M. F. Neutralizing and hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies to rubella virus as indicators of protective immunity in vaccinees and naturally immune individuals. J Infect Dis. 1978 Dec;138(6):877–883. doi: 10.1093/infdis/138.6.877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Vejtorp M., Leerhoy J. Comparison of the sensitivity of ELISA and the haemagglutination-inhibition test for routine diagnosis of rubella. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B. 1980 Dec;88(6):349–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1980.tb02655.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- van Loon A. M., van der Logt J. T., van der Veen J. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for measurement of antibody against cytomegalovirus and rubella virus in a single serum dilution. J Clin Pathol. 1981 Jun;34(6):665–669. doi: 10.1136/jcp.34.6.665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]