|
KMID : 1094020160330020102
|
|
Journal of Veterinary Clinics
2016 Volume.33 No. 2 p.102 ~ p.106
|
|
|
Comparison of Two Commercial Antibody Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detection of Porcine Reproductive Respiratory Syndrome Virus Infection
|
|
Pak Son-Il
Lee Seung-Hwan
Park Kyung-Ae
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
More than 20 years after the first report of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in Korea, the disease is still having major impact on domestic pig health and relevant industries. Although ELISA tests are commonly used by veterinarians to guide herd management, data on diagnostic performance of the test in field settings are very limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate two commercially available PRRSV ELISA (IDEXX PRRS X3 ELISA and Bionote PRRSV ELISA 4.0) to detect antibodies against PRRSV on serum samples. To this end, a total of 1,108 sera were recruited from 35 swine farms located in Gyeonggi province and tested at the Gyeonggi Province Veterinary Service Center. All tests were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, by laboratory technicians who routinely perform PRRS testing on blood samples. Samples were collected from two sources of swine populations with different PRRS prevalence; 60 samples (5.4%) were originated from breeding farms and the remaining 1,048 samples (94.6%) were from farrow-to-finish farms. We applied Bayesian latent class model (LCM) for two-tests in the two-population when the accuracy of the gold standard is not available. The model estimated that Bionote ELISA was a bit more specific but slightly less sensitive. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of the IDEXX ELISA were 99.8% (95% CI 98.1-100%) and 86.4% (95% CI 81.4-96.5%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for Bionote kit were 98.7% (95% CI 92.8-100%), 89.8% (95% CI 86.2-93.1%), 93.8% (95% CI 91.5-96.0%), and 97.8% (95% CI 87.1-100%), respectively. Based on the Bayesian 95% credible intervals, the sensitivity and specificity of the two ELISAs were not significantly different each other when assuming that two kits were imperfect, indicating that two kits performed equally well in terms of sensitivity and specificity in our filed setting.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
PRRS, ELISA, antibody, diagnostic performance, latent class model
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|