This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gärtner, B. C. Articles by Mueller-Lantzsch, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gärtner, B. C. Articles by Mueller-Lantzsch, N.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 2003, p. 78-82, Vol. 10, No. 1
1071-412X/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.10.1.78-82.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Four Commercially Available Epstein-Barr Virus Enzyme Immunoassays with an Immunofluorescence Assay as the Reference Method

Department of Virology, EBV Reference Center, University Homburg/Saar, Homburg/Saar,¹ HISS Diagnostics GmbH, Freiburg,² Institute of Virology, University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany³

Received 30 May 2002/ Returned for modification 6 August 2002/ Accepted 20 September 2002

Four commercially available enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Novitec, Biotest, Virotech, and DiaSorin) were evaluated, with an indirect immunofluorescence assay as the reference method, for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) VCA (viral capsid antigen) immunoglobulin G (IgG), VCA IgM, or EBNA (EBV nuclear antigen) IgG at three different locations (Homburg, Stuttgart, and Dresden). Serum samples from 66 immunocompetent patients with infectious mononucleosis, 73 patients without prior EBV infection, and 96 patients with past EBV infections and 29 serum samples with possible cross-reactions to other herpesviruses were included. In addition, 25 samples from an extensively pretested panel that is commercially available (Boston Biomedica) were tested. Each sample was tested at only one location. The four EIAs varied considerably in performance. When analyzing for EBV diagnosis, the Novitec assay performed the best, with 4.9% discrepant diagnoses, followed by the Biotest, Virotech, and DiaSorin assays, with 6.8, 11.7, and 14.0% discrepant diagnoses, respectively. On the basis of single-parameter analysis, the Novitec assay also showed the lowest number of discrepant results, with 3.5%, compared with the Virotech, Biotest, and DiaSorin assays, which produced 5.4, 6.4, and 8.6% discrepant results, respectively. VCA assays using affinity-purified native antigens performed better than assays with recombinant or synthetic antigens. The synthetic EBNA-1s showed the lowest concordance with the reference compared to recombinant p72. Commercially available EBV EIAs differed considerably in performance; however, some proved to be reliable and convenient alternatives to the indirect immunofluorescence assay for routine diagnostics. Native antigens, rather than synthetic peptides, are favored for EBV serology testing.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Ponsonby, A.-L., van der Mei, I., Dwyer, T., Blizzard, L., Taylor, B., Kemp, A., Simmons, R., Kilpatrick, T. (2005). Exposure to Infant Siblings During Early Life and Risk of Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA 293: 463-469 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hess, R. D. (2004). Routine Epstein-Barr Virus Diagnostics from the Laboratory Perspective: Still Challenging after 35 Years. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42: 3381-3387 [Full Text]