Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 May;51(4):160-5.
doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0450.2004.00746.x.

Verification of sensitivity and specificity of group a rotavirus detection in piglets faeces with monoclonal blocking ELISA methods

L Rodák  1 , B Smíd, Z Nevoránková, R Smítalová, L Valícek
Affiliations

Verification of sensitivity and specificity of group a rotavirus detection in piglets faeces with monoclonal blocking ELISA methods

L Rodák et al. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2004 May.

Abstract

Monoclonal antibodies to group A rotavirus Vp6 protein were prepared and used for verification of three blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) modifications to detect rotavirus A. Selected competitive blocking ELISA (CB-ELISA) and electron microscopy (EM) were used for examination of 194 field faecal samples of piglets affected with diarrhoea. Rotavirus was detected in 43 samples (22.2%) by CB-ELISA method, whereas in 26 (13.4%) samples by EM examination. However, of 26 samples positive by EM, rotavirus A was detected by CB-ELISA in 19 (73.1%) samples; indicating the share of group A rotavirus in all cases of gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus. The sensitivity and specificity of the CB-ELISA was verified both by inclusion of control samples containing transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV) in each analysis and by comparative examination of samples with the commercial ELISA kit. The CB-ELISA sensitivity was positively affected by examination of samples in the presence of chelating agent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Al Yousif, Y. , Anderson J., Chard‐Bergstrom C., Bustamante A., Muenzenberger M., Austin K., and Kapil S., 2001: Evaluation of a latex agglutination kit (Virogen Rotatest) for detection of bovine rotavirus in fecal samples. Clin. Diagn Lab. Immunol. 8, 496–498. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bajolet, O. , and Chippaux‐Hyppolite C., 1998: Rotavirus and other viruses of diarrhea. Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot. 91, 432–437. - PubMed
    1. Benfield, D. A. , Stotz I., Moore R., and McAdaragh J. P., 1982: Shedding of rotavirus in feces of sows before and after farrowing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 16, 186–190. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benfield, D. A. , Stolz I. J., Nelson E. A., and Groon K. S., 1984: Comparison of a commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay with electron microscopy, fluorescent antibody, and virus isolation for the detection of bovine and porcine rotavirus. Am. J. Vet. Res. 45, 1998–2002. - PubMed
    1. Boorsma, D. M. , and Streefkerk J. G., 1979: Periodate or glutaraldehyde for preparing peroxidase conjugates? J. Immunol. Methods 30, 245–255. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances