1. Serologic and Molecular Biologic Methods for SARS-associated Coronavirus Infection, Taiwan
- Author
-
Wen-Zieh Yang, Jyh-Yuan Yang, Kai-Hung Huang, Shu-Chun Chiu, Ih-Jen Su, Mei-Ching Wang, Jih-Hui Lin, Tsan-Chang Tseng, Tsuey-Li Lin, Yu-Fen Hsu, Li-Li Lee, Shun-Pi Su, Ho-Sheng Wu, Li-Ching Hsu, Szu-Fong Lin, Hour-Young Chen, Tian-Lin Ferng, Shih-Yan Yang, and Ting Hsiang Lin
- Subjects
Epidemiology ,lcsh:Medicine ,Fluorescent Antibody Technique ,medicine.disease_cause ,Antibodies, Viral ,Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ,Serology ,Antigens, Viral ,neutralization test ,Coronavirus ,Chromatography ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction ,virus diseases ,SARS-CoV ,Recombinant Proteins ,Infectious Diseases ,serodiagnostic methods ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus ,Predictive value of tests ,ELISA ,Antibody ,IFA ,Microbiology (medical) ,Blotting, Western ,Taiwan ,Western blot ,Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ,Biology ,Cross Reactions ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Virus ,lcsh:Infectious and parasitic diseases ,Antigen ,Neutralization Tests ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Neutralization test ,parasitic diseases ,medicine ,Humans ,lcsh:RC109-216 ,immunochromatographic test ,Research ,lcsh:R ,fungi ,bacterial infections and mycoses ,equipment and supplies ,Virology ,Immunology ,biology.protein - Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has raised a global alert since March 2003. After its causative agent, SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV), was confirmed, laboratory methods, including virus isolation, reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and serologic methods, have been quickly developed. In this study, we evaluated four serologic tests ( neutralization test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], immunofluorescent assay [IFA], and immunochromatographic test [ICT]) for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV in sera of 537 probable SARS case-patients with correlation to the RT-PCR . With the neutralization test as a reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 98.2%, 98.7%, 98.7%, and 98.4% for ELISA; 99.1%, 87.8%, 88.1% and 99.1% for IFA; 33.6%, 98.2%, 95.7%, and 56.1% for ICT, respectively. We also compared the recombinant-based western blot with the whole virus–based IFA and ELISA; the data showed a high correlation between these methods, with an overall agreement of >90%. Our results provide a systematic analysis of serologic and molecular methods for evaluating SARS-CoV infection.
- Published
- 2004