Why the study?
Does a novel peptide-recombinant VP6 protein based enzyme immunoassay accurately detect group A rotavirus in fecal samples compared to RT-PCR?
Does a novel peptide-recombinant VP6 protein based enzyme immunoassay accurately detect group A rotavirus in fecal samples compared to RT-PCR?
The novel peptide-recombinant VP6 protein based enzyme immunoassay is a highly sensitive and specific tool for detecting group A rotavirus across multiple species, suitable for epidemiological surveillance.
We developed a novel enzyme immunoassay for the detection of group A rotavirus (RVA) antigen in fecal samples of multiple host species. The assay is based on the detection of conserved VP6 protein using anti-recombinant VP6 antibodies as capture antibodies and anti-multiple antigenic peptide (identified and constructed from highly immunodominant epitopes within VP6 protein) antibodies as detector antibodies. The clinical utility of the assay was evaluated using a panel of 914 diarrhoeic fecal samples from four different host species (bovine, porcine, poultry and human) collected from diverse geographical locations in India. Using VP6- based reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the gold standard, we found that the diagnostic sensitivity (DSn) and specificity (DSp) of the new assay was high [bovine (DSn = 94.2% & DSp = 100%); porcine (DSn = 94.6% & DSp = 93.3%); poultry (DSn = 74.2% & DSp = 97.7%) and human (DSn = 82.1% & DSp = 98.7%)]. The concordance with RT-PCR was also high [weighted kappa (k) = 0.831-0.956 at 95% CI = 0.711-1.0] as compared to RNA-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (RNA-PAGE). The performance characteristics of the new immunoassay were comparable to those of the two commercially available ELISA kits. Our results suggest that this peptide-recombinant protein based assay may serve as a preliminary assay for epidemiological surveillance of RVA antigen and for evaluation of vaccine effectiveness especially in low and middle income settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: