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
Comparative Study
. 2017 Jul;55(7):2127-2136.
doi: 10.1128/JCM.00580-17. Epub 2017 Apr 26.

Serologic Testing for Zika Virus: Comparison of Three Zika Virus IgM-Screening Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays and Initial Laboratory Experiences

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Serologic Testing for Zika Virus: Comparison of Three Zika Virus IgM-Screening Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays and Initial Laboratory Experiences

Dane Granger et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Serologic evaluation for Zika virus (ZIKV) infection currently includes an initial screen using an anti-ZIKV IgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA) followed by supplemental testing of specimens with nonnegative results by a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We compared the performance characteristics of three ELISAs for the detection of IgM class antibodies to ZIKV, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Zika MAC-ELISA, the InBios ZIKV Detect MAC-ELISA, and the Euroimmun anti-Zika Virus IgM ELISA. Additionally, we present our initial experiences with ZIKV serologic testing from a national reference laboratory perspective. Using both retrospectively and prospectively collected specimens from patients with possible ZIKV infection, we show that the CDC and InBios MAC-ELISAs perform comparably to each other, with positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 87.5% to 93.1%, 95.7% to 98.5%, and 0.52 to 0.83, respectively. In contrast, comparison of the Euroimmun ZIKV ELISA to either the CDC or InBios MAC-ELISAs resulted in positive agreement, negative agreement, and interrater kappa values ranging from 17.9% to 42.9%, 91.7% to 98.6%, and 0.10 to 0.39, respectively. Among the 19 prospective samples submitted for PRNT, nine were negative, eight specimens had neutralizing antibodies to a flavivirus (unable to be identified), and one sample each was confirmed for ZIKV or dengue virus infection. This study highlights the ongoing challenges associated with serologic diagnosis of ZIKV infection. Although the availability of a commercial serologic test for ZIKV has greatly expanded the national capacity for such testing, the need to further characterize and improve these assays, particularly with regard to specificity, remains.

Keywords: Zika virus; serology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Campos GS, Bandeira AC, Sardi SI. 2015. Zika virus outbreak, Bahia, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 21:1885–1886. doi:10.3201/eid2110.150847. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Waggoner JJ, Pinsky BA. 2016. Zika virus: diagnostics for an emerging pandemic threat. J Clin Microbiol 54:860–867. doi:10.1128/JCM.00279-16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. PAHO/WHO. 2016. Zika suspected and confirmed cases reported by countries and territories in the Americas: cumulative cases, 2015–2016. PAHO/WHO, Washington, DC.
    1. Petersen LR, Jamieson DJ, Powers AM, Honein MA. 2016. Zika virus. N Engl J Med 374:1552–1563. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602113. - DOI - PubMed
    1. D'Ortenzio E, Matheron S, Yazdanpanah Y, de Lamballerie X, Hubert B, Piorkowski G, Maquart M, Descamps D, Damond F, Leparc-Goffart I. 2016. Evidence of sexual transmission of Zika virus. N Engl J Med 374:2195–2198. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1604449. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms