» Articles » PMID: 3519662

Detection of Rotavirus in Stool Specimens with Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibody-based Assay Systems

Overview
Specialty Microbiology
Date 1986 May 1
PMID 3519662
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Accurate diagnosis of rotavirus is important in both clinical and research situations. A total of 100 stool specimens from children with diarrhea were tested for rotavirus by electron microscopy. These specimens were then coded and tested for rotavirus by four procedures: a monoclonal antibody-based enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Pathfinder; Kallestad Laboratories, Inc., Austin, Tex.), two polyclonal antibody-based EIAs (Rotazyme II; Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill.; and an EIA performed with reagents from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. [NIH reagent EIA]), and a latex agglutination (LA) assay (Rotalex; Medical Technology Corp., Somerset, N.J.). The sensitivity of the monoclonal antibody EIA (95%) was superior to those of the polyclonal antibody EIAs (73% for Rotazyme II and 57% for the NIH reagent EIA) and the LA assay (61%). The specificity of the LA assay (98%) was slightly better than those of the other systems (88 to 96%). The positive and negative predictive values of the monoclonal antibody EIA (93 and 96%, respectively) were better than those of Rotazyme II (82 and 80%, respectively), the LA assay (96 and 76%, respectively), and the NIH reagent EIA (93 and 74%, respectively). The visual readings of the monoclonal antibody EIA correlated better with the spectrophotometric optical density readings than did the visual readings of the polyclonal antibody EIAs; however, the agreement of both with electron microscopy results was poor when 1+ or plus-minus readings were observed. The monoclonal antibody EIA is more sensitive and predictive than other rotavirus detection systems and second only to the LA assay in specificity in detecting rotavirus in stool specimens.

Citing Articles

Development of a latex agglutination test for norovirus detection.

Lee H, Park Y, Kim M, Jee Y, Cheon D, Jeong H J Microbiol. 2010; 48(4):419-25.

PMID: 20799081 DOI: 10.1007/s12275-010-0071-4.


Evaluation of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of human rotaviruses in fecal specimens.

Eing B, May G, Baumeister H, Kuhn J J Clin Microbiol. 2001; 39(12):4532-4.

PMID: 11724877 PMC: 88581. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.12.4532-4534.2001.


A cost effective and effective approach to the diagnosis and management of acute infectious diarrhea.

Guerrant R, Wanke C, Barrett L, Schwartzman J Bull N Y Acad Med. 1987; 63(6):484-99.

PMID: 3118993 PMC: 1629377.


Monoclonal antibodies for clinical applications. Patents and literature.

Dordick J Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 1988; 19(3):271-96.

PMID: 3072927 DOI: 10.1007/BF02921499.


Ability of TESTPACK ROTAVIRUS enzyme immunoassay to diagnose rotavirus gastroenteritis.

Chernesky M, Castriciano S, Mahony J, Spiewak M, Schaefer L J Clin Microbiol. 1988; 26(11):2459-61.

PMID: 3069866 PMC: 266919. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.26.11.2459-2461.1988.


References
1.
Bishop R, Davidson G, HOLMES I, Ruck B . Virus particles in epithelial cells of duodenal mucosa from children with acute non-bacterial gastroenteritis. Lancet. 1973; 2(7841):1281-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(73)92867-5. View

2.
Cukor G, Blacklow N . Human viral gastroenteritis. Microbiol Rev. 1984; 48(2):157-79. PMC: 373217. DOI: 10.1128/mr.48.2.157-179.1984. View

3.
Pickering L, Evans D, DuPont H, Vollet 3rd J, Evans Jr D . Diarrhea caused by Shigella, rotavirus, and Giardia in day-care centers: prospective study. J Pediatr. 1981; 99(1):51-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(81)80956-0. View

4.
Yolken R, Leister F . Evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for the detection of human rotavirus. J Infect Dis. 1981; 144(4):379. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/144.4.379. View

5.
RUBENSTEIN A, Miller M . Comparison of an enzyme immunoassay with electron microscopic procedures for detecting rotavirus. J Clin Microbiol. 1982; 15(5):938-44. PMC: 272217. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.15.5.938-944.1982. View