Key result
The newly developed rctCap ELISA for detecting porcine circovirus-like virus P1 antibodies demonstrated a diagnostic sensitivity of 93.6% and a specificity of 98.3% compared with the gold standard IFA.
Why the study?
Does an indirect ELISA using rctCap accurately diagnose porcine circovirus-like virus P1 in pigs compared to IFA?
Does an indirect ELISA using rctCap accurately diagnose porcine circovirus-like virus P1 in pigs compared to IFA?
The developed indirect ELISA using rctCap is a sensitive and specific tool for large-scale detection of porcine circovirus-like virus P1 infections in swine.
BACKGROUND: Porcine circovirus-like virus P1 is a newly discovered virus. To date, there has been no specific serological assay for use in the diagnosis of P1 infection. RESULTS: Because P1 has high homology to porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) at the nucleotide level, the C-terminal portion of the capsid protein (amino acids 73-114), a discriminative antigen, was expressed in a prokaryotic expression system. The recombinant product (rctCap), composed of three identical repeated domains, was shown to be strongly immunoreactive to P1-specific serum. This assay was validated by comparison with an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the rctCap enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) developed in this study are 93.6% and 98.3%, respectively, compared with the results from IFAs on 450 sera samples from pigs. CONCLUSIONS: The indirect ELISA that we developed with rctCap, the recombinant capsid fragment containing the 217-342 nt repeat domain, was sensitive, specific, and suitable for the large-scale detection of P1 infections in swine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wen et al. (2016) studied Porcine circovirus-like virus P1 infection (n=1,135). rctCap ELISA vs. Indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) was evaluated on Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. The newly developed rctCap ELISA for detecting porcine circovirus-like virus P1 antibodies demonstrated a diagnostic sensitivity of 93.6% and a specificity of 98.3% compared with the gold standard IFA.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: