Why the study?
Does the evaluated ELISA kit effectively detect antibodies to FMDV nonstructural proteins in infected animals compared to standard liquid-phase blocking ELISA?
Does the evaluated ELISA kit effectively detect antibodies to FMDV nonstructural proteins in infected animals compared to standard liquid-phase blocking ELISA?
The evaluated ELISA kit may not be suitable for serological surveillance after an FMD outbreak due to delayed detection and false negatives in vaccinated pigs.
May limit this ELISA kit's role in FMD serological surveillance; leaves open need for further validation in veterinary diagnostics.
An ELISA kit for detection of antibodies to a nonstructural protein of foot-and-mouth disease (FMDV) was further evaluated using sequentially collected serum samples of experimentally infected animals, because the sensitivity of the kit used in a previous study was significantly low in field animals. The kit fully detected antibodies in infected animals without vaccination; however, the first detections of antibodies by the kit were later than those by the liquid-phase blocking ELISA that is used for serological surveillance in the aftermath of outbreaks in Japan, for detection of antibodies to structural proteins of FMDV. Additionally, although the kit effectively detected antibodies in infected cattle with vaccination, there were several infected pigs with vaccination for which the kit did not detect antibodies during the experimental period. Taken together, the kit may not be suitable for serological surveillance after an FMD outbreak either with or without emergency vaccination in FMD-free countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fukai et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: