Comparison of a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with electron microscopy, fluorescent antibody, and virus isolation for the detection of bovine and porcine rotavirus.
The purpose in this study was to compare the sensitivity of a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with electron microscopy (EM), fluorescent antibody (FA), and virus isolation (VI) for the detection of bovine and porcine rotavirus (RV). Seventy-three bovine and 116 porcine accessions were evaluated by 1 or all 4 diagnostic tests, where suitable specimens were available. For the bovine samples, agreement was 33% between FA and EM, 33% between FA and ELISA, and 92% between EM and ELISA. For the porcine samples, agreement was 79% between EM and FA, 72% between EM and ELISA, and 82% between ELISA and FA. Virus was isolated from 68% and 41% of the bovine and porcine fecal samples, respectively. Commercial ELISA was as sensitive as EM, but was more sensitive than FA or VI for the detection of RV in bovine feces. Electron microscopy was more sensitive than FA, ELISA, or VI for detection of RV in porcine feces. The ELISA was an advantageous alternative to the conventional methods of EM, FA, and VI for the diagnosis of RV in calf feces, but not for porcine feces.
D000818:Animals; D000956:Antigens, Viral / Q000032:analysis; D002417:Cattle; D002418:Cattle Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003967:Diarrhea / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; D005243:Feces / Q000382:microbiology; D005455:Fluorescent Antibody Technique; D005759:Gastroenteritis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary; D008854:Microscopy, Electron; D012401:Rotavirus / Q000276:immunology / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D012400:Rotavirus Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000662:veterinary*; D013552:Swine; D013553:Swine Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*
D000956:Antigens, Viral