Evaluation of the Wampole Laboratories ELISA-based assay for Epstein–Barr virus serology

Fung, Mark; Mordarski, Kathy T.; Bader, Sharon; Gronowski, Ann M.

doi:10.1016/s0009-8981(02)00012-8

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the agreement is higher than that observed in another study comparing different ELISA and IFA methods (5). This was especially evident with anti-EA IgG, since the previous study compared ELISA to IFA methods, whereas the present study compares two solid-phase immunoassays.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

“…As such, the concordance between the two systems in assigning one of four specific EBV diagnoses was not as high (82%) as was observed for each individual test. Nevertheless, the agreement between these two systems in assigning a diagnosis is superior to that reported between IFA and ELISA systems in two similar studies (3,5). As derived from Table 4, most of the disagreement in assigning EBV status occurs when one is determining whether a patient was previously infected or is in a reactivation or recovery stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Table 2 demonstrates a generally accepted algorithm for classifying patients into an EBV status via serologic profile (5,13,14). Using this table, each patient was assigned an EBV status based on results of the conventional tests.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a 2003 survey of laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists, ELISA-based methods are now the most widely used (2). Furthermore, ELISA methods are well characterized and are considered to be the reference laboratory methods (3,5,7,14,15). Recently, BioRad Laboratories (Hercules, Calif.) introduced a new method for the detection of antibodies to EBV (BioPlex 2200).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a Multiplexed Bead Assay for Assessment of Epstein-Barr Virus Immunologic Status

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, serological assays using either indirect immunofluorescence assay or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are performed to evaluate the status of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in humans. Although these methods are reliable, they are limited to testing an antibody response to a single viral antigen per reaction, thus necessitating a panel of assays to complete the evaluation. In contrast, a new bead-based method (BioPlex 2200; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, Calif.) can analyze the humoral response to multiple antigens in a single tube. This approach potentially reduces overall cost, turnaround time, and sample volume. The aim of this study was to evaluate the multiplexed EBV serologic assays performed on the BioPlex 2200 platform compared to results of conventional heterophile and ELISA-based assays. A total of 167 nonconsecutive, stored serum samples from adult and pediatric patients submitted for EBV serologic studies were used in the evaluation. Concordance between results generated by the BioPlex 2200 system and conventional assays was calculated. The anti-EA-D assay had the lowest concordance at 91%. The BioPlex 2200 system showed 97% agreement with conventional heterophile and anti-nuclear antigen assays and 92% agreement with the anti-VCA IgG and immunoglobulin M assays. Agreement between the BioPlex 2200 system and conventional testing was 92% with respect to categorization of acute versus nonacute EBV disease. The correlation between these two systems with regard to assignment into one of four categories of EBV status was also good (82%). In summary, there is excellent correlation between contemporary EBV serologic testing and the BioPlex 2200 system.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a Multiplexed Bead Assay for Assessment of Epstein-Barr Virus Immunologic Status

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional laboratory or clinical information may be required for these patients in order to accurately categorize the disease state. Despite the differences in performance between the BioPlex assay and the EIA, our evaluation showed closer correlation between these methods than past studies comparing conventional tests, such as the EIA and IFA (6)(7)(8)22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Evaluation of a Multiplex Flow Immunoassay for Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific Antibodies

Binnicker

Jespersen

Harring

et al. 2008

Clin Vaccine Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional methods for the detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific antibodies include the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA). While sensitive and specific, these methods are labor-intensive and require separate assays for each analyte. This study evaluated the performance of a multiplex bead assay (BioPlex 2200; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) for the simultaneous detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM class antibodies to the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG class antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1). Serum specimens (n ‫؍‬ 1,315) submitted for routine EBV-specific antibody testing by EIA (Grifols-Quest, Inc., Miami, FL) were also tested by the multiplex bead assay using the BioPlex 2200 automated analyzer. Specimens showing discordant results were tested by IFA. Following IFA resolution, the BioPlex VCA IgM, VCA IgG, and EBNA-1 IgG assays demonstrated 97.9%, 91.4%, and 96.9% agreement, respectively, with the results obtained by EIA. Furthermore, the BioPlex assays showed an overall agreement of 94.1% with the EIA when the specimens were categorized by disease state (susceptible, acute, or past infection) based on the EBV-specific antibody profiles. These findings indicate that the BioPlex EBV assays demonstrate a performance comparable to that of the conventional EIA, while allowing for a more rapid (2.3 h for 100 samples versus 4.5 h by the EIA) and higher-throughput (ϳ400 samples per 9 h versus 200 samples by the EIA) analysis of the EBV-specific antibody response. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the primary agent of infectious mononucleosis (IM), a common syndrome characterized by fever, pharyngitis, and lymphadenopathy. Most individuals become infected during childhood, and it is estimated that nearly 95% of the adult population worldwide is seropositive for the virus (20). While the majority of infections result in either asymptomatic or mild disease, serious complications, including B-and T-cell lymphomas, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and central nervous system involvement, may occur, especially in immunocompromised hosts (14).The diagnosis of IM is made, in most cases, on the basis of characteristic clinical manifestations or the detection of heterophile antibodies (24). However, a determination of the EBVspecific antibody response may be required for young children (especially those Ͻ4 years old) (26) and for adults suspected of having heterophile-negative IM. Testing for immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG class antibodies to the viral capsid antigen (VCA) and for IgG class antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1) allows for a discrimination between recent and remote infection (8,18,21,22). Levels of antibodies (IgM and/or IgG) to VCA are typically elevated during the acute phase of IM (19,22,26), with anti-VCA IgM levels showing a steady decline 4 to 6 weeks after symptom onset (16). In contrast, anti-VCA IgG persists indefinitely, and its detection along with that of anti-EBNA-1 IgG suggests past exposure to the virus (25)...

show abstract

Evaluation of Abbott Architect, Siemens Immulite, bioMerieux Vidas, and Euroimmune assays for determination of Epstein–Barr virus serological diagnosis

Appak

Ozkaratas

Sayıner

2021

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serological tests detecting antibodies for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antigens are frequently used to define infection status. Several new automated assays are available for this purpose. We compared the performance of Architect, Immulite, Vidas, and Euroimmune immunofluorescence assays (IFA)/enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the detection of EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) immunoglobulin M (IgM), VCA IgG, Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA)-1 IgG. The routine diagnosis of EBV in our laboratory is done by anti-EBV VCA IgM IFT, anti-EBV VCA IgG IFT, and anti-EBNA-1 IgG ELISA (Euroimmune) Kits. Samples were tested with EBV Kits of Architect, Immulite, and Vidas for anti-VCA IgM, anti-VCA IgG, and anti-EBNA-1 IgG. The agreement between assays was calculated for each marker individually and for the determination of the EBV infection profile, based on the combination of three markers. BIOCHIP Sequence EBV (Avidity test) and/or EUROLINE EBV Profile 2 (IgG/IgM) were used as confirmatory assays to resolve discrepancies. The best concordance for VCA IgM detection was between Immulite and Vidas; for VCA IgG and EBNA-1 IgG were between Architect andVidas. The sensitivities and specificities for VCA IgM were 97% and 88% for IFA, 100% and 94% for Architect, 100% and 99% for Vidas, and 100% and 100% for Immulite, respectively. The most problematic marker was EBNA-1 IgG with a 68.1% specificity by Immulite. Vidas panel had a perfect performance (100%) for determining all EBV profiles. Overall, evaluated assays had comparable performance. There were more discordant VCA IgG and EBNA-1 IgG results than VCA IgM results.The agreement between Architect and Vidas was better than other assays.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Wampole Laboratories ELISA-based assay for Epstein–Barr virus serology

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Evaluation of a Multiplexed Bead Assay for Assessment of Epstein-Barr Virus Immunologic Status

Evaluation of a Multiplexed Bead Assay for Assessment of Epstein-Barr Virus Immunologic Status

Evaluation of a Multiplex Flow Immunoassay for Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific Antibodies

Evaluation of Abbott Architect, Siemens Immulite, bioMerieux Vidas, and Euroimmune assays for determination of Epstein–Barr virus serological diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About