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

Serologic Prevalence of Ebola Virus in Equatorial Africa

Imke Steffen et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019 May.

Abstract

We conducted a serologic survey of 2,430 serum samples collected during 1997-2012 for various studies to determine the prevalence of the hemorrhagic fever virus Ebola virus (EBOV) in equatorial Africa. We screened serum samples for neutralizing antibodies by using a pseudotype microneutralization assay and a newly developed luciferase immunoprecipitation system assay. Specimens seroreactive for EBOV were confirmed by using an ELISA. Our results suggest a serologic prevalence of 2%-3.5% in the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have reported outbreaks of infection with EBOV. In addition we detected a seroprevalence of 1.3% in southern Cameroon, which indicated a low risk for exposure in this region.

Keywords: Cameroon; Democratic Republic of the Congo; ELISA; Ebola virus; Ghana; Republic of the Congo; Uganda; equatorial Africa; filovirus; hemorrhagic fever; hemorrhagic fever virus; luciferase immunoprecipitation system; neutralization assay; pseudotypes; serologic prevalence; viruses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Numbers of serum samples collected from Ghana, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, DRC, and Uganda in study of serologic prevalence of Ebola virus in equatorial Africa. DRC, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Figure 2
Figure 2
High-throughput screening data for neutralizing antibodies against EBOV and MACV glycoprotein pseudotypes in serum samples in study of serologic prevalence of Ebola virus in equatorial Africa. A) Uganda; B) Cameroon; C) Ghana; D) southern Cameroon; E) Republic of the Congo; F) Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; G) Kasaï Oriental Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Serum samples were tested at a 1:50 dilution against the different pseudotypes. Samples that reduced pseudotype infectivity by >50% compared with a negative serum control were considered positive and confirmed by titration. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. EBOV, Ebola virus; MACV, Machupo virus.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Antibody reactivity against Ebola virus matrix protein as measured by luciferase immunoprecipitation system assay for the different sample sets in study of serologic prevalence of Ebola virus in equatorial Africa. Data were normalized against individual cutoff values determined for each experiment. Samples yielding reactivity >1 were counted as positive specimens. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. 1, Uganda 2007; 2, Cameroon 2007; 3, Ghana 2007; 4, Cameroon 2011–2012; 5, Republic of the Congo; 6, Kinshasha, Democratic Republic of the Congo; 7, Kasaï Oriental Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summarized Ebola virus nucleoprotein ELISA data for confirmation of neutralizing and LIPS-reactive specimens across all sample sets in study of serologic prevalence of Ebola virus in equatorial Africa. For comparison, 57 random nonneutralizers were included. The ELISA cutoff value of 4.62 U/mL (dashed line) was determined on the basis of background reactivity for 47 serum samples from the local general population. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. LIPS, luciferase immunoprecipitation system.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overlap of different assay results for Ebola virus serology across all samples in study of serologic prevalence of Ebola virus in equatorial Africa. A) Total sample set; B) sample sets from Kinshasha, Democratic Republic of the Congo; C) sample set from Kasaï Oriental Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. LIPS, luciferase immunoprecipitation system; NA, not applicable (ELISA was performed only for samples with positive results in other assays); NP, nucleoprotein; VP40, matrix protein.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Murray MJ. Ebola virus disease: a review of its past and present. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:798–809. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000866 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leroy EM, Kumulungui B, Pourrut X, Rouquet P, Hassanin A, Yaba P, et al. Fruit bats as reservoirs of Ebola virus. Nature. 2005;438:575–6. 10.1038/438575a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leroy EM, Rouquet P, Formenty P, Souquière S, Kilbourne A, Froment JM, et al. Multiple Ebola virus transmission events and rapid decline of central African wildlife. Science. 2004;303:387–90. 10.1126/science.1092528 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bausch DG, Borchert M, Grein T, Roth C, Swanepoel R, Libande ML, et al. Risk factors for Marburg hemorrhagic fever, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:1531–7. 10.3201/eid0912.030355 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moyen N, Thirion L, Emmerich P, Dzia-Lepfoundzou A, Richet H, Boehmann Y, et al. Risk factors associated with Ebola and Marburg viruses seroprevalence in blood donors in the Republic of Congo. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003833. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003833 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms