Comparison of direct and indirect enzyme immunoassays with direct ultracentrifugation before electron microscopy for detection of rotaviruses.
A direct and an indirect enzyme immunoassay (EIA) were evaluated against a standard of electron microscopy after direct ultracentrifugation of the specimen for their performances in detecting rotaviruses. The indirect EIA had variable background activity which influenced test specificity. The indirect EIA control (test system without the detector antibody) plus a regression line (which reflected background noise) improved test specificity. However, the results of direct EIA (Rotazyme; Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill.) sensitivity (86%) and specificity (96%) were better than those of the indirect EIA in tests on 73 rotavirus-positive and 78 rotavirus-negative specimens. Endpoint titrations of purified SA-11 rotavirus showed greater sensitivity of the direct EIA test. Electron microscopy, performed after direct ultracentrifugation, and direct EIA were approximately 2 log10 more sensitive in the detection of purified SA-11 rotavirus than was electron microscopy with standard methods of unconcentrated specimen preparation. Direct EIA test are potentially sensitive, specific, and practical for the rapid detection of rotaviruses from human clinical specimens. Further studies are needed before EIA methods for detection of human rotaviruses can be equated with the level of reliability of results obtainable with sensitive electron microscopy techniques.
D000818:Animals; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D002522:Chlorocebus aethiops; D006386:Hemagglutination Tests; D007124:Immunoenzyme Techniques; D007668:Kidney; D008854:Microscopy, Electron / Q000379:methods; D012087:Reoviridae / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D012401:Rotavirus / Q000302:isolation & purification* / Q000648:ultrastructure