A capture-enzyme immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus

Wei Lu, Fernando A. Osorio, Marvin B. Rhodes, Rodney A Moxley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were developed for the detection of swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) antigens. The 2 EIAs used the same detecting system, a monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, but used different capture systems including a monoclonal antibody (m-EIA) or a polyclonal antibody (p-EIA). The EIAs were compared with the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) and electron microscopy (EM) for the detection of TGEV in intestinal samples of experimentally inoculated gnotobiotic piglets and of conventional diarrheic pigs submitted for diagnosis. In the gnotobiotic piglets experimentally inoculated with TGEV, 81.8% (9/11) were positive for TGEV by p-EIA, and 72.7% (8/11) were positive by m-EIA. In comparison, 81.8% (9/11) were positive by FAT and 27.2% (3/11) were positive by EM. Three noninfected controls were negative by all tests. In the diagnostic samples, 86.0% (43/50) were positive by p-EIA, 68.2% (30/44) were positive by m-EIA, 28.6% (14/49) were positive by IFA, and 38.0% (19/50) were positive by EM. The m-EIA had a higher agreement with FAT and EM than did p-EIA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)119-123
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991

Fingerprint

Transmissible gastroenteritis virus
enzyme immunoassays
Immunoenzyme Techniques
electron microscopy
Electron Microscopy
Germ-Free Life
Antibodies
antibodies
piglets
monoclonal antibodies
Monoclonal Antibodies
testing
transmissible gastroenteritis
Horseradish Peroxidase
polyclonal antibodies
peroxidase
Swine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

A capture-enzyme immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus. / Lu, Wei; Osorio, Fernando A.; Rhodes, Marvin B.; Moxley, Rodney A.

In: Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol. 3, No. 2, 01.01.1991, p. 119-123.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5beaf5646a784a9fb663647d6cb62212,
title = "A capture-enzyme immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus",
abstract = "Two enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were developed for the detection of swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) antigens. The 2 EIAs used the same detecting system, a monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, but used different capture systems including a monoclonal antibody (m-EIA) or a polyclonal antibody (p-EIA). The EIAs were compared with the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) and electron microscopy (EM) for the detection of TGEV in intestinal samples of experimentally inoculated gnotobiotic piglets and of conventional diarrheic pigs submitted for diagnosis. In the gnotobiotic piglets experimentally inoculated with TGEV, 81.8{\%} (9/11) were positive for TGEV by p-EIA, and 72.7{\%} (8/11) were positive by m-EIA. In comparison, 81.8{\%} (9/11) were positive by FAT and 27.2{\%} (3/11) were positive by EM. Three noninfected controls were negative by all tests. In the diagnostic samples, 86.0{\%} (43/50) were positive by p-EIA, 68.2{\%} (30/44) were positive by m-EIA, 28.6{\%} (14/49) were positive by IFA, and 38.0{\%} (19/50) were positive by EM. The m-EIA had a higher agreement with FAT and EM than did p-EIA.",
author = "Wei Lu and Osorio, {Fernando A.} and Rhodes, {Marvin B.} and Moxley, {Rodney A}",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/104063879100300202",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "119--123",
journal = "Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation",
issn = "1040-6387",
publisher = "American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A capture-enzyme immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus

AU - Lu, Wei

AU - Osorio, Fernando A.

AU - Rhodes, Marvin B.

AU - Moxley, Rodney A

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - Two enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were developed for the detection of swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) antigens. The 2 EIAs used the same detecting system, a monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, but used different capture systems including a monoclonal antibody (m-EIA) or a polyclonal antibody (p-EIA). The EIAs were compared with the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) and electron microscopy (EM) for the detection of TGEV in intestinal samples of experimentally inoculated gnotobiotic piglets and of conventional diarrheic pigs submitted for diagnosis. In the gnotobiotic piglets experimentally inoculated with TGEV, 81.8% (9/11) were positive for TGEV by p-EIA, and 72.7% (8/11) were positive by m-EIA. In comparison, 81.8% (9/11) were positive by FAT and 27.2% (3/11) were positive by EM. Three noninfected controls were negative by all tests. In the diagnostic samples, 86.0% (43/50) were positive by p-EIA, 68.2% (30/44) were positive by m-EIA, 28.6% (14/49) were positive by IFA, and 38.0% (19/50) were positive by EM. The m-EIA had a higher agreement with FAT and EM than did p-EIA.

AB - Two enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were developed for the detection of swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) antigens. The 2 EIAs used the same detecting system, a monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, but used different capture systems including a monoclonal antibody (m-EIA) or a polyclonal antibody (p-EIA). The EIAs were compared with the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) and electron microscopy (EM) for the detection of TGEV in intestinal samples of experimentally inoculated gnotobiotic piglets and of conventional diarrheic pigs submitted for diagnosis. In the gnotobiotic piglets experimentally inoculated with TGEV, 81.8% (9/11) were positive for TGEV by p-EIA, and 72.7% (8/11) were positive by m-EIA. In comparison, 81.8% (9/11) were positive by FAT and 27.2% (3/11) were positive by EM. Three noninfected controls were negative by all tests. In the diagnostic samples, 86.0% (43/50) were positive by p-EIA, 68.2% (30/44) were positive by m-EIA, 28.6% (14/49) were positive by IFA, and 38.0% (19/50) were positive by EM. The m-EIA had a higher agreement with FAT and EM than did p-EIA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026149237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026149237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/104063879100300202

DO - 10.1177/104063879100300202

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 119

EP - 123

JO - Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation

JF - Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation

SN - 1040-6387

IS - 2

ER -