Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26232106›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2015

Development of an indirect ELISA, blocking ELISA, fluorescent microsphere immunoassay and fluorescent focus neutralization assay for serologic evaluation of exposure to North American strains of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus.

Faten Okda, Xiaodong Liu, Aaron Singrey, Travis Clement, Julie Nelson, Jane Christopher-Hennings, Eric A Nelson, Steven Lawson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Faten OkdaVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. faten.okda@sdstate.edu.
Xiaodong LiuVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. xiaodong.liu@sdstate.edu.
Aaron SingreyVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. aaron.singrey@sdstate.edu.
Travis ClementVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. travis.clement@sdstate.edu.
Julie NelsonVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. julie.nelson@sdstate.edu.
Jane Christopher-HenningsVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. jane.hennings@sdstate.edu.
Eric A NelsonVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. eric.nelson@sdstate.edu.
Steven LawsonVeterinary & Biomedical Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. steven.lawson@sdstate.edu.
South Dakota State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent, severe outbreaks of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) in Asia and North America highlight the need for well-validated diagnostic tests for the identification of PEDV infected animals and evaluation of their immune status to this virus. PEDV was first detected in the U.S. in May 2013 and spread rapidly across the country. Some serological assays for PEDV have been previously described, but few were readily available in the U.S. Several U.S. laboratories quickly developed indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) assays for the detection of antibodies to PEDV in swine serum, indicating prior exposure. However, the IFA has several disadvantages, including low throughput and relatively subjective interpretation. Different serologic test formats have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the questions being asked, so a full repertoire of tests is useful. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop and validate multiple improved serological assays for PEDV, including an indirect ELISA (iELISA); a highly specific monoclonal antibody-based blocking ELISA (bELISA); fluorescent microsphere immunoassays (FMIA) that can be multiplexed to monitor exposure to multiple antigens and pathogens simultaneously; and a fluorescent focus neutralization assay (FFN) to measure functional virus neutralizing antibodies.

resultsA recombinant North American nucleoprotein (NP) based iELISA was developed and validated along with a bELISA using newly developed PEDV-NP specific biotinylated monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and an FMIA using magnetic beads coupled with expressed NA PEDV-NP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed using swine serum samples (iELISA n = 1486, bELISA n = 1186, FMIA n = 1420). The ROC analysis for the FMIA showed estimated sensitivity and specificity of 98.2 and 99.2 %, respectively. The iELISA and bELISA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 97.9 and 97.6 %; and 98.2 and 98.9 %, respectively. Inter-rater (kappa) agreement was calculated to be 0.941 between iELISA and IFA, 0.945 between bELISA and IFA and 0.932 between FMIA and IFA. Similar comparative kappa values were observed between the iELISA, bELISA and FMIA, which demonstrated a significant level of testing agreement among the three assays. No cross-reactivity with the closely related coronaviruses, transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) was noted with these assays. All three assays detected seroconversion of naïve animals within 6-9 days post exposure. The FFN assay allows relative quantitation of functional neutralizing antibodies in serum, milk or colostrum samples.

conclusionWell-validated iELISA, bELISA and FMIA assays for the detection of PEDV antibodies were developed and showed good correlation with IFA and each other. Each assay format has advantages that dictate how they will be used in the field. Newly developed mAbs to the PEDV-NP were used in the bELISA and for expediting FFN testing in the detection and quantitation of neutralizing antibodies. In addition, these PEDV mAbs are useful for immunohistochemistry, fluorescent antibody staining and other antigen-based tests. Measurement of neutralizing antibody responses using the FFN assay may provide a valuable tool for assessment of vaccine candidates or protective immunity.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, ViralChlorocebus aethiopsCoronavirus InfectionsImmunoassayMicrospheresNorth AmericaPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsSwineSwine DiseasesVero CellsAntibodies, ViralAntigens, Viral

Identifiers

PMID26232106
PMCPMC4522128
OpenAlexW2169509946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.