Table 2.

Detection of TGEV in a faecal sample of an experimentally infected piglet 24 hpi using three variants of monoclonal blocking ELISA methods

ELISA variant	Absorbances and % of blocking obtained with different dilutions of faces and swine sera
	Faeces dilution	SwS dilution 20×				SwS dilution 100×
		Neg.	Pos.	NA	%B	Neg.	Pos.	NA	%B
1 DAS‐ELISA *mAbTGEV †HRPO‐mAbTGEV	2×	0.577	0.167	0.410	71.1	0.334	0.264	0.070	21.0
	10×	0.418	0.113	0.305	73.0	0.442	0.140	0.302	68.3
	50×	0.178	0.072	0.106	59.6	0.213	0.059	0.154	72.3
	250×	0.142	0.058	0.084	59.2	0.054	0.049	0.005	9.3
2 CB‐ELISA *SwATGEV †HRPO‐SwAMoIg	2×	1.392	0.606	0.786	56.5	1.309	1.049	0.260	19.9
	10×	1.225	0.153	1.072	87.5	1.379	0.640	0.739	53.6
	50×	0.304	0.022	0.282	92.8	1.056	0.134	0.922	87.3
	250×	0.032	0.018	0.014	43.7	0.202	0.025	0.177	87.6
3 DAS‐ELISA *SwATGEV †HRPO‐mAbTGEV	2×	1.743	0.873	0.870	49.9	1.573	1.314	0.259	16.5
	10×	1.482	0.270	1.212	81.8	1.543	0.829	0.714	46.3
	50×	0.441	0.099	0.342	77.6	1.197	0.204	0.993	83.0
	250×	0.142	0.073	0.069	48.6	0.215	0.063	0.152	70.7

Dilutions of samples with positive values NA (>0.1) and %B (>50.0) are given in bold.

NA, net absorbance. Differences of mean absorbances in wells incubated with SwSneg./pos.

%B, % of absorbance blocking in the wells incubated with SwSpos. in comparison with the wells incubated with SwSneg.

*Binding antibodies.

†Detection antibodies (conjugate) used in respective blocking ELISA method variants.