Key result
Polyvalent ELISA outperforms complement fixation for detecting foot-and-mouth disease virus, though viral isolation remains superior.
Why the study?
Does ELISA using polyvalent and monovalent antisera improve the detection sensitivity of foot-and-mouth disease virus compared to the CF50 test?
Population
Epithelial samples for the detection of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) O, A, and C virus types
Comparison
Indirect "sandwich" enzyme-linked immunosorbent… vs 50% complement fixation (CF50) test
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
May support combined ELISA and cell culture protocols for FMD detection in animals; leaves open validation before routine veterinary adoption.
Does ELISA using polyvalent and monovalent antisera improve the detection sensitivity of foot-and-mouth disease virus compared to the CF50 test?
The combined use of ELISA with polyvalent antisera and cell culture inoculations is the most effective procedure for identifying FMD virus in field epithelial samples.
Alonso et al. (1992) studied Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using polyvalent antisera vs. 50% complement fixation (CF50) test and ELISA using monovalent antisera was evaluated on Detection of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) O, A, and C virus types. ELISA using polyvalent antisera was more sensitive than the 50% complement fixation test for detecting foot-and-mouth disease virus, though viral isolation in cell culture was the most sensitive.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: