Paired nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens obtained from each of 32 hospitalized infants with X-ray-confirmed pneumonia (91%) or bronchiolitis were tested for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection by virus culture, the indirect immunofluorescent-antibody (IFA) technique, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc.), and spot hybridization with a human genomic probe to quantitate cellular DNA. RSV was isolated in cell cultures from 72% (23 of 32) of patients by using NPA specimens compared with 47% (15 of 32) by using NPS specimens. With tissue culture positivity as the reference test, the sensitivities of the ELISA on NPA and NPS specimens were found to be 69% (16 of 23) and 61% (14 of 23), respectively, with a specificity and a positive predictive value from both sites of 100%. The sensitivities of the IFA technique compared with the cell culture on NPA and NPS specimens were 61% (14 of 23) and 52% (12 of 23) with specificities of 89 and 78% and positive predictive values of 96 and 92%, respectively. Despite the recovery of significantly more cells (as shown by detection of more cellular DNA by using NPA specimens), virus was detected by the IFA technique or ELISA at similar frequencies in paired specimens. However, virus was recovered more often from NPA than NPS specimens by cell culture, and ELISA optical density readings and the number of RSV-positive fluorescing cells were greater for NPA specimens. NPA specimen collection was less traumatic for the patient, was an easier procedure for the physician to perform, and provided a superior laboratory specimen for RSV diagnosis than the NPS technique.

A direct and an indirect enzyme immunoassay (EIA) were evaluated against a standard of electron microscopy after direct ultracentrifugation of the specimen for their performances in detecting rotaviruses. The indirect EIA had variable background activity which influenced test specificity. The indirect EIA control (test system without the detector antibody) plus a regression line (which reflected background noise) improved test specificity. However, the results of direct EIA (Rotazyme; Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, TIl.) sensitivity (86%) and specificity (96%) were better than those of the indirect EIA in tests on 73 rotavirus-positive and 78 rotavirus-negative specimens. Endpoint titrations of purified SA-11 rotavirus showed greater sensitivity of the direct EIA test. Electron microscopy, performed after direct ultracentrifugation, and direct EIA were approximately 2 log10 more sensitive in the detection of purified SA-11 rotavirus than was electron microscopy with standard methods of unconcentrated specimen preparation. Direct EIA tests are potentially sensitive, specific, and practical for the rapid detection of rotaviruses from human clinical specimens. Further studies are needed before EIA methods for detection of human rotaviruses can be equated with the level of reliability of results obtainable with sensitive electron microscopy techniques.

Fecal samples submitted for virus examination over July 1990 to June 1991 from children < 3 years of age were examined by electron microscopy (EM), virus culture (VC), and enzyme immunoassay [EIA, group-reactive and adenovirus (Ad) 40/41 specific; Cambridge BioScience] to compare the detection rate of adenovirus from pediatric fecal specimens. Ad isolates of serotypes 1-7 grown in HEp-2 or primary rhesus monkey kidney cells were identified by neutralization. Graham 293 cell cultures were used only when specimens were found to be positive for Ad by EM, type-specific Ad40/41 EIA, and for isolates not identified by neutralization. Ads grown in 293 cells were identified by DNA restriction endonuclease analysis. Of the 1187 specimens examined, 105 (9%) were found to be positive for Ad. VC detected 93, while 12 additional positives were detected by EM or EIA. The relative sensitivity of VC, EIA, and EM for the 105 specimens was 89% (93), 45% (47), and 35% (37), respectively. Among the 105 positive specimens, enteric Ad, nonenteric Ad, and untypeable Ad were 28% (29), 65% (68), and 7% (8), respectively. Of 37 EM positives, 62% (23) were enteric Ad; 27% (10) were nonenteric including serotypes 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 31, with 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, and 1 isolates of each type positive, respectively; and 11% (4) were detectable only by EM. Five isolates were identified as variant of Ad 2(3), Ad 3(1) and Ad 31(1). Over a 1-year period, a single Ad41 variant strain was the most frequently detected enteric Ad in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

A commercial monoclonal antibody enzyme immunoassay for the detection of enteric adenovirus types 40 and 41 (Ad4O and Ad4l) in stool specimens was evaluated. Twenty-one stool specimens from children with gastroenteritis, with adenovirus particles visible by electron microscopy, and reference strains Ad4O Dugan and Ad4l Tak were tested by Ad4O-and Ad4l-specific and adenovirus group-reactive immunoassays. AU stool specimens tested positive in the group-reactive immunoassay. However, only six specimens, containing isolates of Ad4O strain Hovi-X, an Ad4O genomic variant, and Ad4l strain Tak, reacted with the specific immunoassay, besides the reference strains. Fifteen stool specimens determined by restriction analysis to contain a genomic variant of Ad4l were negative by specific immunoassay. The positions of restriction site differences from the prototype strain Ad4l Tak were analyzed, and four mutations were mapped within the hexon gene; two others may occur in the fiber gene. The Ad4l genomic variant not detected by the enteric test is presently the most frequent cause of local adenoviral gastroenteritis. Highly specific monoclonal antibodies can fail to detect genomic variants of enteric adenoviruses, probably because of alteration of external neutralizable epitopes under immunological pressure to vary.

No abstract

The sensitivity of the counterimmunoelectrophoresis test with NCDV, Wa, and SA-11 rotavirus antisera was 60, 60, and 67%, respectively. The counterimmunoelectrophoresis specificity was greater than 99%, but the low sensitivity is a limiting feature of this test as a first-line immunodiagnostic test for rotavirus detection.

No abstract