2014
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-014-0300-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different commercial ELISAs for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum

Abstract: BackgroundIn recent years, several new ELISAs for the detection of antibodies against the porcine reproductive and respiratory disease virus (PRRSV) in pig serum have been developed. To interpret the results, specificity and sensitivity data as well as agreement to a reference ELISA must be available. In this study, three commercial ELISAs (INgezim PRRS 2.0 - ELISA II, Priocheck® PRRSV Ab porcine – ELISA III and CIVTEST suis PRRS E/S PLUS - ELISA IV, detecting PRRSV type 1 antibodies) were compared to a standa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
36
0
4

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(36 reference statements)
2
36
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The nucleocapsid-based IDEXX PRRS X3 Ab test is usually used as the gold standard for detection of PRRSV Ab by ELISA [14]. In our study, with this ELISA, however, no Ab could be detected in serum samples of piglets vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The nucleocapsid-based IDEXX PRRS X3 Ab test is usually used as the gold standard for detection of PRRSV Ab by ELISA [14]. In our study, with this ELISA, however, no Ab could be detected in serum samples of piglets vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…One positive result was found with the INgezim ELISA in the non-vaccinated group at day 0. The specificity of this ELISA was calculated with 99% in another study, which is slightly lower than the specificity of the IDEXX ELISA [1]. This can be the explanation for the false positive result.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations