Why the study?
Hepatitis E is not easily distinguished clinically from other acute viral hepatitides, creating a need for diagnostic assays to detect and prevent interspecies transmission.
Does a nanobody-based competitive ELISA accurately detect antibodies against Hepatitis E Virus compared to a commercial kit?
Does a nanobody-based competitive ELISA accurately detect antibodies against Hepatitis E Virus compared to a commercial kit?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A novel nanobody-based competitive ELISA shows high sensitivity and specificity for detecting anti-HEV antibodies across multiple species.
The hepatitis E virus (HEV) is an emergent zoonotic virus causing viral hepatitis worldwide. Clinically, hepatitis E is not easily distinguished from other types of acute viral hepatitis. There is a need for HEV diagnostic assays to detect and prevent interspecies transmission among susceptible populations. Nanobodies (Nbs) are expressed recombinantly in different systems, produced with high yields, and have superior physicochemical properties compared with conventional antibodies (Ab). Several Nbs against ORF2, the capsid protein and main antigen, were selected and produced in E. coli. Nb39 and Nb74 specifically recognized HEV ORF2 (genotypes 3 and 4). A competitive ELISA (cELISA) was developed and validated using a reference panel of human (n = 86) and swine sera (n = 116) tested in comparison with a commercial kit. The optimal cutoff values determined by ROC analysis were 69.16% (human) and 58.76% (swine); the sensitivity and specificity were high: 97.4% (IC95%; 86.5–99.5%) and 95.8% (IC95%; 86.0-98.8%) for human vs. 100% (IC95%: 93.5–100%) and 98.3% (IC95%: 91.0-99.7%) for swine. Further, the cELISA detected total anti-HEV antibodies in wild boar, deer, and mice. To our knowledge, this is the first report of production of Nbs against HEV-3 ORF2 for diagnostic purposes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arce et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: