Evaluation of a multiplex fluorescent microsphere immunoassay for the determination of epstein-barr virus serologic status

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a human herpesvirus, affects up to 95% of adults. Diagnosis of acute EBV infection can be challenging and often relies on the serologic antibody pattern to 3 distinct antigens, most often determined by indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), and, more recently, multiplex assays. We compared a multiplex assay for the simultaneous detection of antibodies to viral capsid (VCA), nuclear (EBNA), and early (EA) EBV antigens with ELISAs using IFA for discrepancy resolution. Concordance of the multiplex assay was good for all 4 antigens: VCA IgM, 86.6% vs ELISA and 92.9% vs IFA; VCA IgG, 92.8% vs ELISA and 98.0% vs IFA; EBNA IgG, 90.3% vs ELISA and 98.1% vs IFA; and EA IgG, 83.8% vs ELISA and 92.8% vs IFA. After IFA resolution, correlation between the multiplex assay and ELISA for serologic disease stage, based on the antibody profile of all 4 analytes, was 90%. The multiplex assay showed good correlation with an established ELISA and even better correlation with the "gold standard" IFA. Advantages of the multiplex assay over traditional methods include multiple results per assay, inclusion of internal controls for each assay, and well-to-well monitoring of assay drift.     

Evaluation of the Architect Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) Viral Capsid Antigen (VCA) IgG,VCA IgM,and EBV Nuclear Antigen 1 IgG Chemiluminescent Immunoassays for Detection of EBV Antibodies and Categorization of EBV Infection Status Using Immunofluorescence Assays as the Reference Method

Commercial immunoassays for detecting IgG and IgM antibodies against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), viral capsid antigens (VCA), and IgGs toward EBV nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1) are routinely used in combination to categorize EBV infection status. In this study, we evaluated the performances of the Architect EBV VCA IgG, VCA IgM, and EBNA-1 IgG chemiluminescent microparticle assays (CMIAs) in EBV serological analyses using indirect immunofluorescence assays and anticomplement immunofluorescence assays as the reference methods for VCA IgG, VCA IgM, and EBNA-1 IgG antibody detection, respectively. A total of 365 serum samples representing different EBV serological profiles were included in this study. The κ values (concordances between the results) obtained in the Architect CMIA and those in the reference assays were 0.905 (P < 0.0001) for VCA IgM, 0.889 (P < 0.0001) for VCA IgG, and 0.961 (P < 0.0001) for EBNA-1 IgG. The sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 91.08% and 99.48% for VCA IgM, 99.23% and 86.27% for VCA IgG, and 96.77% and 99.16% for EBNA-1 IgG. The sensitivities and specificities of the Architect CMIA panel were, respectively, 99.15% and 98.6% for diagnosing a primary infection, 97.62% and 93.39% for diagnosing a past EBV infection, and 92.42% and 97.82% for diagnosing the absence of an EBV infection. In summary, we demonstrated that the Architect EBV antibody panel performs very well for EBV antibody detection and correctly categorizes clinically relevant EBV infection states.     

The use of semi-automated EBV IgG avidity determination for the diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis

The diagnosis of acute Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection is based frequently on the combination of positive viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgM antibodies and negative EB viral nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA-1) IgG antibodies. However, both VCA IgM and EBNA-1 IgG can provide false positive and false negative results. Therefore, situations in which the EBV serology remains unclear are not uncommon. Determination of EBV IgG avidity can clarify the EBV status in these patients. So far, mainly immunofluorescence assays have been used for this purpose. These tests are laborious, their evaluation is subjective, and automation is difficult. Therefore, two commercially available microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were compared for their usefulness for semi-automated EBV IgG avidity determination. One assay is based on a mixture of EBV antigens, the other assay uses a synthetic peptide of the VCA-complex. Patient sera of confirmed acute and past EBV infections were tested for avidity by both assays. The results with the antigen mixture assay proved to be highly sensitive (100%) and specific (100%). Avidity index calculations on the basis of one-point-quantification titers gave better results than calculations using OD values. Determination of EBV IgG avidity by the peptide assay was complicated by the fact that it was less sensitive than the antigen mixture assay for IgG detection in acute EBV infections. On the other hand, about 30% of the samples had to be retested with the peptide assay in a higher dilution because the IgG units in initial testing fell outside the range covered by the standard curve. Using OD values of the peptide EIA, the sensitivity was 99% but the specificity of detection of acute EBV infections was only 86%. Thus, while the peptide EBV avidity assay is unsuitable as a confirmatory assay, avidity testing with the antigen mixture assay is a useful tool to resolve equivocal EBV serologies. Avidity assays on the basis of EIA can be automated which should lead to wider use of this methodology. J. Med. Virol. 54:145–153, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss,Inc.     

Performance of the Architect EBV Antibody Panel for Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus Infection Stage in Immunocompetent Adolescents and Young Adults with Clinical Suspicion of Infectious Mononucleosis

The Architect EBV antibody panel is a new chemiluminescence immunoassay system used to determine the stage of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection based on the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies to viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG antibodies against Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA-1). We evaluated its diagnostic accuracy in immunocompetent adolescents and young adults with clinical suspicion of infectious mononucleosis (IM) using the RecomLine EBV IgM and IgG immunoblots as the reference standard. In addition, the use of the antibody panel in a sequential testing algorithm based on initial EBNA-1 IgG analysis was assessed for cost-effectiveness. Finally, we investigated the degree of cross-reactivity of the VCA IgM marker during other primary viral infections that may present with an EBV IM-like picture. High sensitivity (98.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 90.7 to 99.7%]) and specificity (94.2% [95% CI, 87.9 to 97.8%]) were found after testing 162 precharacterized archived serum samples. There was perfect agreement between the use of the antibody panel in sequential and parallel testing algorithms, but substantial cost savings (23%) were obtained with the sequential strategy. A high rate of reactive VCA IgM results was found in primary cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (60.7%). In summary, the Architect EBV antibody panel performs satisfactorily in the investigation of EBV IM in immunocompetent adolescents and young adults, and the application of an EBNA-1 IgG-based sequential testing algorithm is cost-effective in this diagnostic setting. Concomitant testing for CMV is strongly recommended to aid in the interpretation of EBV serological patterns.     

Comparison of Three Automated Immunoassay Methods for the Determination of Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific Immunoglobulin M

In this study we compared the performances of three commercially available Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) immunoglobulin M (IgM) assays on highly automated immunoassay platforms: BioPlex 2200 (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Immulite 2000 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), and Liaison (DiaSorin). As a confirmatory method, immunoblotting was performed. The specificity of the three EBV IgM assays was evaluated by testing 293 selected sera from patients with various infectious and noninfectious diseases. After the exclusion of 30 samples, the specificities were 96.2% for Liaison, 98.1% for Immulite, and 97.0% for BioPlex. For evaluation of the sensitivity, samples from 70 consecutive patients with a positive heterophile antibody test were examined, irrespective of clinical or biological findings. After the exclusion of six samples, the sensitivities were 89.1% for Liaison, 84.4% for Immulite, and 89.1% for BioPlex. Finally, in a prospective study performed with 500 samples obtained from consecutive patients and sent in by general practitioners, we also determined Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen IgG and viral capsid antigen IgG in a two-phase approach. Concordance of the EBV serologic status was 96.2% between Liaison and Immulite, 96.4% between Immulite and BioPlex, and 97.8% between BioPlex and Liaison. The three EBV IgM immunoassays that we evaluated have acceptable and comparable performances.Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the causative agent of infectious mononucleosis, a clinical syndrome characterized by especially fever, pharyngitis, and adenopathy. However, many other pathogens, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus 6, Toxoplasma gondii, human immunodeficiency virus, parvovirus B19, and herpes simplex virus, can cause mononucleosislike illnesses (6, 12). In primary care, the diagnostic approach to infectious mononucleosis frequently involves the determination of EBV-specific IgM antibodies. The ideal EBV-specific IgM assay should not only be sensitive and specific; in the modern laboratory automation, throughput, speed, accessibility, standardization, ease of use, and flexibility also play an important role. In the past decade, several immunoassay methods have been commercialized that may be able to meet most of these criteria (4, 7, 14).The present study was designed to compare the performances of three EBV IgM assays on highly automated random access platforms: BioPlex 2200 (Bio-Rad Laboratories), Immulite 2000 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics), and Liaison (DiaSorin). It was performed in a two-phase approach. First, using 363 selected samples we determined the sensitivities and specificities of the EBV IgM assays. In a second approach we prospectively determined the EBV serologic status on samples from 500 different consecutive patients for which EBV IgM determination was requested by general practitioners.     

Serological diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection: Problems and solutions

Serological tests for antibodies specific for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antigens are frequently used to define infection status and for the differential diagnosis of other pathogens responsible for mononucleosis syndrome. Using only three parameters [viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgG, VCA IgM and EBV nuclear antigen (EBNA)-1 IgG],it is normally possible to distinguish acute from past infection: the presence of VCA IgM and VCA IgG without EBNA-1 IgG indicates acute infection, whereas the presence of VCA IgG and EBNA-1 IgG without VCA IgM is typical of past infection. However, serological findings may sometimes be difficult to interpret as VCA IgG can be present without VCA IgM or EBNA-1 IgG in cases of acute or past infection, or all the three parameters may be detected simultaneously in the case of recent infection or during the course of reactivation. A profile of isolated EBNA-1 IgG may also create some doubts. In order to interpret these patterns correctly, it is necessary to determine IgG avidity, identify anti-EBV IgG and IgM antibodies by immunoblotting, and look for heterophile antibodies, anti-EA (D) antibodies or viral genome using molecular biology methods. These tests make it possible to define the status of the infection and solve any problems that may arise in routine laboratory practice.     

Evaluation of a multiplexed bead assay for assessment of Epstein-Barr virus immunologic status

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.     

Performance of the BioPlex 2200 Flow Immunoassay in Critical Cases of Serodiagnosis of Toxoplasmosis

The BioPlex 2200 automated analyzer (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) is a recently developed multiplex analyzer that enables the detection of anti-Toxoplasma, -rubella, and -cytomegalovirus antibodies in the same assay. The aim of this study was to compare this new technology (using the BioPlex 2200 ToRC IgG/IgM kit) in critical cases of serodiagnosis of toxoplasmosis (acute, chronic, or congenital infections and cases with discrepant results) to the technologies used in our routine practice, i.e., the Platelia IgG/IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (Bio-Rad Laboratories) and the Toxo-Screen direct agglutination assay (bioMérieux, Lyon, France). Overall, most cases of false-positive/negative results obtained with the Platelia IgG or Toxo-Screen assay were corrected by the BioPlex 2200 ToRC IgG (87.5%). Furthermore, the analysis of 35 sequences of sera showed a trend toward a more rapid decrease of IgM titers by BioPlex 2200 than by Platelia. These results for IgM detection can be explained by a weaker detection of residual IgM. Indeed, among 23 serum samples from patients with probable past infection with long-lasting IgM (Platelia M positive and IgG avidity index, ≥0.5), the BioPlex 2200 Toxoplasma IgM assay was positive for only 11 serum samples. In our panel of critical cases comprising 156 serum and 6 cord blood samples from 103 patients with acute, chronic, or congenital infection, the BioPlex 2200 IgG assay was a sensitive (97.8%) and specific (91.3%) method for IgG detection. The high specificity (97.4%) of IgM detection combined with the shorter kinetics of IgM titers may considerably reduce the number of residual IgM detections, thus yielding more precise diagnoses of acute infections.     

Serological diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection by novel ELISAs based on recombinant capsid antigens p23 and p18

A new pair of Epstein-Barr virus ELISAs (Biotest Anti-EBV VCA IgG and VCA IgM ELISA) was evaluated for usefulness for routine diagnosis of acute EBV infections. The ELISAs are based on two viral capsid antigens (VCA), p23 (BLRF2, full-length) and p18 (BFRF3, carboxy-half), that are combined by autologous gene fusion. In total, 179 sera were tested in direct comparison with classical VCA immunofluorescence assays (IFA). With the help of clinical data and additional reference serology, i.e., heterophile antibodies, anti-EA IgG (IFA) and anti-EBNA-1 IgG (ELISA), the patients were divided into the following categories: seronegatives (46), acute primary infections (67), previous infections (39), suspected reactivations (20) and constellations with intermediate serological patterns (7). The VCA IgG and VCA IgM ELISAs showed overall agreement to IFA of 95.0% and 94.4%, respectively. The calculated analytical performance (sensitivity; specificity) of VCA IgG and VCA IgM was 94.0%; 97.8% and 97.1%; 96.5%, respectively. A certain delay in seroconversion of anti-p23-p18 IgG may account for a significant difference in sensitivity of the VCA IgG ELISA between primary (88.4%) and previous infections (100%). In summary, the new recombinant VCA ELISAs yielded good correlation to VCA IFA and in combination with EBNA-1 IgG allow rapid, sensitive, and specific diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis or EBV immune status in general.     

Prevalence of primary versus reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with VCA IgG-, VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies and suspected infectious mononucleosis.

BACKGROUND: In Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, IgG- and IgM-antibodies to viral capsid antigen (VCA) and IgG-antibodies to Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA-1) can occur simultaneously both in late primary infection and during subclinical viral reactivation in immunocompetent persons, and the differential diagnosis is of importance. OBJECTIVES: To study the prevalence of primary infection and serological reactivation in patients with suspected primary EBV infection and with all three parameters present. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty serum samples from 43 consecutive patients referred for suspected infectious mononucleosis and positive for VCA IgG-, VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies by EIA, were tested for IgG-antibody avidity with an EBV IgG immunoblot. Sera were also tested for heterophile antibodies (HA). To verify the presence of IgM-antibodies an EBV IgM immunoblot was performed when high-avidity IgG-antibodies were found. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Of 43 patients with suspected primary EBV infection and VCA IgG-, VCA IgM- and EBNA-1-antibodies present, only 18 patients (42%) had a late primary infection. Twenty-one patients (49%) had high-avidity IgG-antibodies, indicating an IgM response due to reactivation, thus suggesting other causes for their symptoms. In 10 of these 21 patients the presence of IgM-antibodies was confirmed by immunoblot, indicating reactivation as a cause of IgM-antibodies in at least 23% of the 43 patients studied. Of 18 patients with primary infection, HA were detected in 16 (94%) of 17 patients tested. Only one (5%) of the patients with high-avidity antibodies had HA. Absence of HA in patients with this serological pattern is therefore a good indicator of reactivation, and conversely, the presence of HA is a good indicator of primary infection. In HA negative patients, avidity testing could be used for differential diagnosis.     

Multiplex Detection of IgM and IgG Class Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii,Rubella Virus,and Cytomegalovirus Using a Novel Multiplex Flow Immunoassay

The goal of this study was to evaluate the BioPlex 2200 Toxoplasma, rubella, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) (ToRC) IgG and IgM multiplex immunoassays (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) and compare the results to those of conventional testing by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and enzyme-linked fluorescent assay (ELFA). Serum specimens (n = 600) submitted for routine ToRC IgG and IgM testing by EIA (SeraQuest, Doral, FL; Diamedix, Miami, FL) or ELFA (Vidas; bioMérieux, Durham, NC) were also tested by the BioPlex ToRC multiplex immunoassays. Samples showing discordant results were retested by both methods, with further discrepancies being arbitrated by a third assay. Following repeat testing, the BioPlex Toxoplasma, rubella, and CMV IgG assays demonstrated agreements of 98.7 (592/600 specimens), 93.3 (560/600 specimens), and 98.3% (590/600 specimens), respectively, while the ToRC IgM assays yielded agreements of 91.2 (547/600 specimens), 87.3 (524/600 specimens), and 95.2% (571/600 specimens), respectively. The BioPlex ToRC IgG assays provided results comparable to EIA/ELFA results, with kappa coefficients showing near-perfect agreement for the Toxoplasma (κ = 0.94) and CMV (κ = 0.97) IgG assays and substantial agreement for the rubella IgG assay (κ = 0.66). The BioPlex ToRC IgM assays showed lower specificity with only slight agreement for Toxoplasma IgM (κ = 0.07), poor agreement for rubella IgM (κ = −0.03), and moderate agreement for CMV IgM (κ = 0.55). Both the BioPlex IgG and IgM assays reduced turnaround time (1.7 h versus 5.5 h by EIA/ELFA for 100 specimens) and eliminated the necessity to manually pipette or aliquot specimens prior to testing.Congenital infections caused by Toxoplasma gondii, rubella, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are a significant cause of neonatal mortality and childhood morbidity worldwide (6, 18, 21). Due to their nonspecific clinical manifestations and the importance of early recognition of in utero infection, serologic screening for these pathogens has been considered a routine practice in many parts of the world (11). Conventional methods for the detection of antibodies to Toxoplasma, rubella, and CMV (ToRC) include immunofluorescence (IFA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and enzyme-linked fluorescent assay (ELFA). These techniques have been used for years in both diagnostic and screening protocols for ToRC infection and have demonstrated reliable performance (5, 10, 14, 22). However, these methods have certain limitations, including low throughput, significant hands-on time, and in the case of IFA, a subjective interpretation of results.Recently, multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI) technology emerged as a novel approach to assess the serologic response to various infectious diseases (3, 4, 13). This technology is similar to traditional EIA but allows for the simultaneous detection and identification of multiple analytes in a single reaction. MFI technology uses a liquid suspension array of up to 100 unique microspheres (5- to 6-μm beads), each conjugated with a different capture molecule (e.g., antibody, antigen, nucleic acid). Each capture analyte is detected and quantitated following the addition of a fluorescently labeled reporter molecule (e.g., phycoerythrin) whose emission is measured by a flow-based detector. In 2009, Bio-Rad Laboratories (Hercules, CA) received FDA clearance for a ToRC IgG immunoassay based on MFI technology. In addition, Bio-Rad has developed a prototype ToRC IgM assay for use in cases of suspected acute infection. These assays are fully automated on the BioPlex 2200 automated analyzer (Bio-Rad Laboratories), allowing for a high-throughput analysis of the ToRC IgG and IgM class antibody response.Due to increasing test volumes (∼20% in the past 5 years) and the limitations of conventional methods (e.g., low throughput, increased hands-on time, and the requirement to aliquot samples prior to testing), we undertook a study to evaluate the BioPlex ToRC IgG and IgM immunoassays using clinical serum samples. The goal of this study was to compare the results of the BioPlex to routine testing by EIA/ELFA, using a third assay to arbitrate discordant results.     

Assessment of rapid ELISA test for detection of Epstein-Barr virus infection.

A rapid test for the detection of IgM and IgG Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA-1) has been extensively marketed. If IgM to Epstein-Barr viral capsid antigen (EBV VCA) is taken as evidence of current EBV infection, one observer detected 17 of 38 such samples and the other 22 of 38 as acute. The positive predictive value of the test was 63%, and the greatest difficulty was posed by the detection of IgM EBV VCA positive, heterophile antibody negative samples. Significant false positive results were obtained in sera with evidence of current Toxoplasma gondii, cytomegalovirus, and adenovirus infection. Rheumatoid factor was not a problem. Modification of the test protocol improved its performance: the positive predictive value rose to 87% and the negative predictive value to 81%. Although our modifications did not increase the speed of the test, there was reliable information on the EBNA-1 state. The test is best used as an adjunct to other EBV serology, and laboratories should be aware of the limitations of the rapid test.     

Evaluation of an Immunofiltration Assay That Detects Immunoglobulin M Antibodies against the ZEBRA Protein for the Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus Infectious Mononucleosis in Immunocompetent Patients

The performance of an immunofiltration assay (IMFA) that detects immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) ZEBRA (BamHI Z EBV replication activator) protein was evaluated for the diagnosis of EBV infectious mononucleosis (IM) in immunocompetent patients. The test panel consisted of 47 sera displaying an EBV-specific antibody profile compatible with an acute primary EBV infection from patients with clinical and biological features of EBV IM, 20 sera from healthy individuals either with a past EBV infection or who were EBV seronegative, 20 sera displaying an equivocal EBV antibody pattern (viral capsid antigen IgG positive [VCA IgG⁺], VCA IgM⁺, and EBV nuclear antigen-1 IgG⁺), and 15 sera obtained from patients with a mononucleosis-like syndrome owing to cytomegalovirus, human herpesvirus 6, or parvovirus B19. Overall, the sensitivity and the specificity of the assay were found to be 92.5%, and 97.3%, respectively. The sensitivity of the assay for the diagnosis of heterophile antibody-negative EBV IM was 86.2%. The IMFA is rapid, easy to perform, and, thus, suitable for point-of-care testing, and it may be used as a first-line test for the diagnosis of acute EBV IM in immunocompetent patients.Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infectious mononucleosis (IM) is commonly made on the basis of characteristic clinical manifestations and the detection of heterophile antibodies (HA). Nevertheless, HA may be absent, particularly in young children (14) but also in as many as 20% of adults with EBV IM (7). In these cases, demonstration of the presence of EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM antibodies, along with the absence of IgG antibodies to EBV nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA-1), allows the diagnosis of EBV primary infection (9). Detection of EBV-specific antibodies is accomplished by the use of commercial enzyme immunoassays, indirect immunofluorescence assays, line blot immunoassays (9), or, as established more recently, a multiplexed bead assay (3). These methods have long turnaround times, are labor-intensive, or require specific instruments or skilled technologists for their performance. In addition, interpretation of EBV VCA IgG/IgM and EBNA-1 IgG reactivity profiles is not always straightforward (9).The ZEBRA (BamHI Z EBV replication activator) protein is encoded by the immediate early BZLF1 gene. ZEBRA is expressed during the lytic cycle in EBV-permissive cells and plays a critical role in transactivating several immediate early, early, and late EBV genes (5). Antibodies against ZEBRA are produced during primary EBV infection (11, 15, 18), and thus, the detection of ZEBRA-specific IgMs may allow an early diagnosis of EBV IM. In the present study, we evaluated a rapid and easy-to-perform immunofiltration assay (IMFA) detecting IgMs to the EBV ZEBRA protein for the biological diagnosis of IM in immunocompetent patients.     

Evaluation of 12 commercial tests for detection of Epstein-Barr virus-specific and heterophile antibodies

Ten microbiological departments in Norway have participated in a multicenter evaluation of the following commercial tests for detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific and heterophile antibodies: CAPTIA Select viral capsid antigen (VCA)-M/G/EBNA (Centocor Inc.), Enzygnost anti-EBV/immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG (Dade Behring), Vironostika EBV VCA IgM/IgG/EBNA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Organon Teknika), SEROFLUOR immunofluorescence assay and EBV Combi-Test (Institute Virion Ltd.), anti-EBV recombinant IgM- and IgG-early antigen/EBNA IgG ELISA (Biotest Diagnostics), EBV IgM/IgG/EBNA ELISA (Gull Laboratories), Paul-Bunnell-Davidsohn test (Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur), Monosticon Dri-Dot (Organon Teknika), Avitex-IM (Omega Diagnostics Ltd.), Alexon Serascan infectious mononucleosis test (Alexon Biomedical Inc. ), Clearview IM (Unipath Ltd.), and Cards+/-OS Mono (Pacific Biotech, Inc.). The test panel included sera from patients with primary EBV infection, immunocompromised patients with recent cytomegalovirus infection, healthy persons (blood donors), and EBV-seronegative persons. Among the tests for EBV-specific antibodies the sensitivity was good, with only small differences between the different assays. However, there was a greater variation in specificity, which varied between 100% (Enzygnost) and 86% (Biotest). Tests for detection of heterophile antibodies based on purified or selected antigen (Avitex, Alexon, Clearview IM, and Cards+/-OS Mono) were more sensitive than the Paul-Bunnell-Davidsohn and Monosticon tests.     

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgG antibodies to human herpes virus 6

An indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with human herpes virus 6 (HHV6) membrane antigen was compared with indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for measurement of HHV6 IgG antibodies. Five hundred serum samples from 403 Swedish patients with suspected symptomatic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections were examined. The specificity of the ELISA compared with IFA was 98.7% and the sensitivity was 98.4%. In 90% of the patients, IgG antibodies to HHV6 were detected with both assays. The highest HHV6 IgG titers were found mainly in patients with EBV or CMV infections, but HHV6 mononucleosis was not diagnosed. The same HHV6 antigen was assessed for IgM ELISA but was found to be of limited value due to high IgM reactivity with the control antigen. The HHV6 IgM ELISA requires further investigation. The IgG ELISA described is a reliable alternative to IFA for measurement of HHV6 IgG antibodies and for large scale epidemiological studies.     

Evaluation of 12 Commercial Tests for Detection of Epstein-Barr Virus-Specific and Heterophile Antibodies

Ten microbiological departments in Norway have participated in a multicenter evaluation of the following commercial tests for detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific and heterophile antibodies: CAPTIA Select viral capsid antigen (VCA)-M/G/EBNA (Centocor Inc.), Enzygnost anti-EBV/immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG (Dade Behring), Vironostika EBV VCA IgM/IgG/EBNA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Organon Teknika), SEROFLUOR immunofluorescence assay and EBV Combi-Test (Institute Virion Ltd.), anti-EBV recombinant IgM- and IgG-early antigen/EBNA IgG ELISA (Biotest Diagnostics), EBV IgM/IgG/EBNA ELISA (Gull Laboratories), Paul-Bunnell-Davidsohn test (Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur), Monosticon Dri-Dot (Organon Teknika), Avitex-IM (Omega Diagnostics Ltd.), Alexon Serascan infectious mononucleosis test (Alexon Biomedical Inc.), Clearview IM (Unipath Ltd.), and Cards±OS Mono (Pacific Biotech, Inc.). The test panel included sera from patients with primary EBV infection, immunocompromised patients with recent cytomegalovirus infection, healthy persons (blood donors), and EBV-seronegative persons. Among the tests for EBV-specific antibodies the sensitivity was good, with only small differences between the different assays. However, there was a greater variation in specificity, which varied between 100% (Enzygnost) and 86% (Biotest). Tests for detection of heterophile antibodies based on purified or selected antigen (Avitex, Alexon, Clearview IM, and Cards±OS Mono) were more sensitive than the Paul-Bunnell-Davidsohn and Monosticon tests.     

Evaluation of the Bio-Rad BioPlex Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella-Zoster Virus IgG multiplex bead immunoassay

The goal of this study was to compare the BioPlex 2200 measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster virus (MMRV) IgG multiplex assays (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) to routine testing by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Serum specimens (n = 500) submitted to our reference laboratory for routine MMRV IgG testing by EIA were also tested by the BioPlex assays. Following testing, the BioPlex measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella-zoster virus assays demonstrated agreements of 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.8% to 93.7%), 94.2% (95% CI, 91.7% to 95.7%), 94.4% (95% CI, 92.0% to 96.1%), and 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.9%), respectively, compared to the results of EIA. Timing studies showed that the BioPlex MMRV assay could provide complete analysis of 100 serum specimens in 1.7 h, compared to 5.5 h by EIA. These data indicate that the BioPlex MMRV IgG assays exhibit comparable performance (93% overall agreement [1,860/2,000 results]; κ = 0.67) to routine testing by EIA. The BioPlex assays allow for the simultaneous detection of all four analytes, thereby eliminating potential aliquot errors and reducing turnaround time.     

Evaluation of four commercial systems for the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus primary infections

To compare the performance of four diagnostic commercial systems for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology (for IgM and IgG virus capsid antigen [VCA] and EBV nuclear antigen [EBNA] antibodies), a collection of 125 samples from clinically suspected infectious mononucleosis cases was studied. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for VCA IgM and IgG antibodies and anticomplement immunofluorescence for EBNA antibodies (Meridian Bioscience Inc.) were used as reference methods. By these methods, the cases were classified EBV primary infection (presence of IgM to VCA or IgG to VCA in the absence of EBNA antibodies; n = 82), EBV past infection (presence of VCA IgG and EBNA antibodies in the absence of VCA IgM; n = 26), or no infection (negative for the three markers; n = 17). The following systems were tested: two chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs; the Liason [CLIA-L; DiaSorin] and the Immulite 2000 [CLIA-I; Siemens]), immunofiltration (IF; All.Diag), and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; DiaSorin). In the IgM assays, sensitivities ranged from 67.1% (ELISA) to 92.2% (CLIA-L) and specificities ranged from 93.8% (CLIA-L) to 100% (IF). In the VCA IgG assays, sensitivities varied from 79.4% (IF) to 94.4% (CLIA-I) and specificities varied from 94.4% (IF and CLIA-L) to 100% (CLIA-I and ELISA). In EBNA assays, sensitivities ranged from 78.1% (IF) to 93.8% (CLIA-I) and specificities ranged from 32.3% (CLIA-L) to 91.4% (IF). In relation to EBV profiles, the corresponding figures for sensitivity (in detecting primary infection) for IF, CLIA-L, CLIA-I, and ELISA were 92.7%, 93.8%, 89%, and 89.6%, respectively, and those for specificity (to exclude primary recent infection) were 90.7%, 94.6%, 97.7%, and 95.2%, respectively. Although there were limitations in some individual markers, especially CLIA-L for EBNA IgG, the systems evaluated appear to be useful for diagnosis of EBV infection.     

Evaluation of the Bio-Rad BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Multiplex Flow Immunoassay for the Detection of IgM- and IgG-Class Antitreponemal Antibodies

The laboratory diagnosis of syphilis is based primarily upon serologic findings. Historically, serologic testing for syphilis has relied on assays such as rapid plasma reagin, fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), and more recently, enzyme immunoassay (EIA). In this study, we evaluated the performance of a novel multiplex flow immunoassay (BioPlex 2200 Syphilis; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) for the detection of antitreponemal IgG- and IgM-class antibodies. Serum specimens (n = 1,008) submitted for routine treponema-specific antibody testing by syphilis IgM and IgG EIA (Trep-Chek; Phoenix-Biotech, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) were also analyzed by the BioPlex Syphilis multiplex assay. Specimens showing discordant results were repeat tested, with further discrepancies being arbitrated by TP-PA. Compared directly to the results of EIA, the BioPlex IgG assay demonstrated 98.7% (77/78) sensitivity and 99.4% (916/930) specificity. Compared to the Trep-Chek IgM EIA, the BioPlex IgM assay showed 80% (4/5) sensitivity and 97.9% (652/666) specificity. These results indicate that the BioPlex Syphilis multiplex assay shows similar serological agreement with EIA while allowing for a fully automated random-access platform that provides faster (1.7 h for 100 samples versus 4.5 h by EIA) and higher-throughput (800 samples per 9 h versus 200 samples by EIA) analysis of the syphilis serologic response.Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum and is diagnosed primarily by serology. T. pallidum infection induces an immunologic response in the host characterized by the production of nontreponemal and treponema-specific antibodies. Nontreponemal antibodies are targeted against a lipoidal antigen (e.g., cardiolipin) that is generated following infection and can be detected by the Venereal Disease Research Laboratories and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) tests. Nontreponemal tests are inexpensive but are labor-intensive and subjective (9). In contrast, treponema-specific tests such as the T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA) and fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) tests detect specific antibodies that react with treponemal antigens. These tests are more specific than nontreponemal assays but are also labor-intensive and subjective and require trained personnel (9).Historically, serum samples have been tested initially by a nontreponemal test (e.g., RPR), with screen-positive samples being confirmed by a treponema-specific assay (e.g., FTA-ABS). However, in recent years, many clinical laboratories have adopted a reverse algorithm in which sera are first tested by a treponema-specific assay (e.g., enzyme immunoassay [EIA]), with positive samples being tested further by RPR to assess the patient''s disease and treatment status (4). This approach may yield increased specificity over screening by RPR (3) and allows clinical laboratories to meet growing test volumes due to the ability to automate EIAs. Although testing for treponema-specific IgG-class antibodies is most common, the detection of IgM-class antibodies may also be useful when evaluating patients with suspected early disease or congenital syphilis (10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20).While a treponema-specific EIA offers a sensitive and specific approach (5), the detection and differentiation of IgM- and IgG-class antibodies by this method require separate assays to be performed. This potentially increases the sample volume required, as well as the turnaround time and cost associated with testing. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the BioPlex 2200 Syphilis multiplex assays (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) for the detection of IgM- and IgG-class antibodies to T. pallidum. Results were compared to those obtained by routine testing using EIA, with discordant results being arbitrated by TP-PA.     

Evaluation of the BioPlex 2200 Syphilis System as a First-Line Method of Reverse-Sequence Screening for Syphilis Diagnosis

Despite recent technological advances, the diagnosis of syphilis remains a challenging enterprise. Actually, most high-volume laboratories have adopted the “reverse algorithm” due several factors, including the potential to automate testing. Recently, immunoassays processed on random-access systems have been proposed as screening tests. The purpose of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performances of BioPlex 2200 Syphilis IgG and BioPlex 2200 Syphilis IgM, tests based on Multiplex Flow technology, in comparison with the performance of Architect Syphilis TP, a chemiluminescent immunoassay for the detection of IgG and/or IgM anti-Treponema pallidum antibodies. A retrospective study was performed with a panel of 100 blood donor sera, a panel of 350 clinical and laboratory-characterized syphilitic sera, and 170 samples obtained from subjects with potentially interfering conditions. Moreover, 200 unselected samples submitted to the Microbiology Laboratory of St. Orsola Hospital in Bologna for routine screening for syphilis were evaluated. As confirmatory tests, T. pallidum hemagglutination and Western blot assays were used. Considering the IgG Western blot (WB) assay to be the gold standard method, BioPlex 2200 Syphilis IgG specificity was far higher than Architect Syphilis TP specificity (89.7% versus 78.4%, respectively), whereas the sensitivity was 100% for both automated methods. Compared to the IgM WB assay, BioPlex 2200 Syphilis IgM performed with a specificity of 94.9%, whereas the sensitivity was 84.8%. Considering the excellent ease of use and automation, the high sample throughput and its valuable analytical performances, BioPlex Syphilis 2200 IgG could represent a suitable choice for high-volume laboratories. BioPlex Syphilis 2200 IgM could be considered a good addition to IgG testing for uncovering active infections.