한국임상수의학회지 (Journal of Veterinary Clinics)

  • 제33권2호
  • /
  • Pages.102-106
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1598-298X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-0749(eISSN)
한국임상수의학회 (The Korean Society of Veterinary Clinics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

돼지생식기호흡기증후군(PRRS) 바이러스 감염 항체 검출 ELISA 상용 키트의 정확도 비교

Comparison of Two Commercial Antibody Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detection of Porcine Reproductive Respiratory Syndrome Virus Infection

  • 박선일 (강원대학교 수의과대학 및 동물의학종합연구소) ;
  • 이승환 (경기도 축산위생연구소) ;
  • 박경애 (경기도 북부 축산위생연구소)
  • Pak, Son-Il (College of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Hwan (Gyeonggi Province Veterinary Service Center) ;
  • Park, Kyung-Ae (Gyeonggi Province Northern Livestock & Veterinary Service)
  • 투고 : 2016.02.20
  • 심사 : 2016.04.14
  • 발행 : 2016.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

More than 20 years after the first report of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in Korea, the disease is still having major impact on domestic pig health and relevant industries. Although ELISA tests are commonly used by veterinarians to guide herd management, data on diagnostic performance of the test in field settings are very limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate two commercially available PRRSV ELISA (IDEXX PRRS X3 ELISA and Bionote PRRSV ELISA 4.0) to detect antibodies against PRRSV on serum samples. To this end, a total of 1,108 sera were recruited from 35 swine farms located in Gyeonggi province and tested at the Gyeonggi Province Veterinary Service Center. All tests were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, by laboratory technicians who routinely perform PRRS testing on blood samples. Samples were collected from two sources of swine populations with different PRRS prevalence; 60 samples (5.4%) were originated from breeding farms and the remaining 1,048 samples (94.6%) were from farrow-to-finish farms. We applied Bayesian latent class model (LCM) for two-tests in the two-population when the accuracy of the gold standard is not available. The model estimated that Bionote ELISA was a bit more specific but slightly less sensitive. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of the IDEXX ELISA were 99.8% (95% CI 98.1-100%) and 86.4% (95% CI 81.4-96.5%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for Bionote kit were 98.7% (95% CI 92.8-100%), 89.8% (95% CI 86.2-93.1%), 93.8% (95% CI 91.5-96.0%), and 97.8% (95% CI 87.1-100%), respectively. Based on the Bayesian 95% credible intervals, the sensitivity and specificity of the two ELISAs were not significantly different each other when assuming that two kits were imperfect, indicating that two kits performed equally well in terms of sensitivity and specificity in our filed setting.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Albina E, Leforban Y, Baron T, Plana Duran JP, Vannier P. An enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of antibodies to the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus. Ann Rech Vet 1992; 23: 167-176.
  2. Branscum AJ, Gardner IA, Johnson WO. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Prev Vet Med 2005; 68: 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.12.005
  3. Bronsvoort BM, Toft N, Bergmann IE, Sorensen KJ, Anderson J, Malirat V, Tanya VN, Morgan KL. Evaluation of three 3ABC ELISAs for foot-and-mouth disease nonstructural antibodies using latent class analysis. BMC Vet Res 2006; 2: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-2-30
  4. Caraguel C, Stryhn H, Gagne N, Dohoo I, Hammell L. Use of a third class in latent class modelling for the diagnostic evaluation of five infectious salmon anaemia virus detection tests. Prev Vet Med 2012; 104: 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.10.006
  5. Chan MC, Lee N, Ngai KL, Leung TF, Chan PK. Clinical and virologic factors associated with reduced sensitivity of rapid influenza diagnostic tests in hospitalized elderly patients and young children. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52: 497-501. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02316-13
  6. Dee SA, Bierk MD, Deen J, Molitor TW. An evaluation of test and removal for the elimination of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus from 5 swine farms. Can J Vet Res 2001; 65: 22-27.
  7. Detrano R, Janosi A, Lyons KP, Marcondes G, Abbassi N, Froelicher VF. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test: the exercise thallium scintigram. Am J Med 1988; 84: 699-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(88)90107-6
  8. Engel B, Buist W, Orsel K, Dekker A, de Clercq K, Grazioli S, van Roermund H. A Bayesian evaluation of six diagnostic tests for foot-and-mouth disease for vaccinated and nonvaccinated cattle. Prev Vet Med 2008; 86: 124-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.03.009
  9. Espejo LA, Zagmutt FJ, Groenendaal H, Munoz-Zanzi C, Wells SJ. Evaluation of performance of bacterial culture of feces and serum ELISA across stages of Johne's disease in cattle using a Bayesian latent class model. J Dairy Sci 2015; 98: 8227-8239. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8440
  10. Ferrin NH, Fang Y, Johnson CR, Murtaugh MP, Polson DD, Torremorell M, Gramer ML, Nelson EA. Validation of a blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2004; 11: 503-514.
  11. Frossard JP1, Hughes GJ, Westcott DG, Naidu B, Williamson S, Woodger NG, Steinbach F, Drew TW. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus: genetic diversity of recent British isolates. Vet Microbiol 2013; 162: 507-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.11.011
  12. Gardner IA. The utility of Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference in veterinary clinical practice and research. Aust Vet J 2002; 80: 758-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2002.tb11347.x
  13. Gerber PF, Gimenez-Lirola LG, Halbur PG, Zhou L, Meng XJ, Opriessnig T. Comparison of commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and fluorescent microbead immunoassays for detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in boars. J Virol Methods 2014; 197: 63-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.12.001
  14. Greiner M, Gardner IA. Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000; 45: 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00114-8
  15. Guo B, Lager KM, Schlink SN, Kehrli ME Jr, Brockmeier SL, Miller LC, Swenson SL, Faaberg KS. Chinese and Vietnamese strains of HP-PRRSV cause different pathogenic outcomes in United States high health swine. Virology 2013; 446: 238-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2013.08.008
  16. Hartnack S, Budke CM, Craig PS, Jiamin Q, Boufana B, Campos-Ponce M, Torgerson PR. Latent-class methods to evaluate diagnostics tests for Echinococcus infections in dogs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2013; 7: e2068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002068
  17. Holtkamp DJ, Kliebenstein JB, Neuumann EJ, Zimmerman JJ, Rotto HF, Yoder TK, Wang C, Yeske PE, Mowrer CL, Haley CA. Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on United States pork producers. J Swine Health Prod 2013; 21: 72-84.
  18. Hui SL, Walter SD. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics. 1980; 36: 167-171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530508
  19. IFC. Good Practice Note: Improving Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations. International Finance Corporation. World Bank Group, 2014.
  20. Johnson WO, Gardner IA, Metoyer CN, Branscum AJ. On the interpretation of test sensitivity in the two-test two-population problem: assumptions matter. Prev Vet Med 2009; 91: 116-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.006
  21. Joseph L, Gyorkos TW, Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141: 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117428
  22. Kim KW, Pak SI. An epidemiological study on biosecurity practices on commercial pig farms in Korea: risk factors for porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome virus infection. J Vet Clin 2015; 32: 78-84.
  23. Lim C, Wannapinij P, White L, Day NP, Cooper BS, Peacock SJ, Limmathurotsakul D. Using a web-based application to define the accuracy of diagnostic tests when the gold standard is imperfect. PLoS One 2013; 8: e79489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079489
  24. Limmathurotsakul D, Turner EL, Wuthiekanun V, Thaipadungpanit J, Suputtamongkol Y, Chierakul W, Smythe LD, Day NP, Cooper B, Peacock SJ. Fool's gold: Why imperfect reference tests are undermining the evaluation of novel diagnostics: a reevaluation of 5 diagnostic tests for leptospirosis. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55: 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis403
  25. Mortensen S, Strandbygaard B, Botner A, Feld N, Willeberg P. Monitoring porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection status in swine herds based on analysis of antibodies in meat juice samples. Vet Res 2001; 32: 441-453. https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2001136
  26. Okinaga T, Yamagishi T, Yoshii M, Suzuki T, Miyazaki A, Takagi M, Tsunemitsu H. Evaluation of unexpected positive results from a commercial ELISA for antibodies to PRRSV. Vet Rec 2009; 164: 455-459. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.164.15.455
  27. Pan-ngum W, Blacksell SD, Lubell Y, Pukrittayakamee S, Bailey MS, de Silva HJ, Lalloo DG, Day NP, White LJ, Limmathurotsakul D. Estimating the true accuracy of diagnostic tests for dengue infection using bayesian latent class models. PLoS One 2013; 8: e50765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050765
  28. Seo BJ, Kim H, Cho HS, Park BY, Kim WI. Evaluation of two commercial PRRSV antibody ELISA kits with samples of known status and singleton reactors. J Vet Med Sci 2016; 78: 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.15-0126
  29. Seuberlich T, Tratschin JD, Thur B, Hofmann MA. Nucleocapsid protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection and differentiation of antibodies against European and North American porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002; 9: 1183-1191.
  30. Speybroeck N, Praet N, Claes F, Van Hong N, Torres K, Mao S, Van den Eede P, Thi Thinh T, Gamboa D, Sochantha T, Thang ND, Coosemans M, Buscher P, D'Alessandro U, Berkvens D, Erhart A. True versus apparent malaria infection prevalence: the contribution of a Bayesian approach. PLoS One 2011; 6: e16705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016705
  31. Toft N, Jorgensen E, Hojsgaard S. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard. Prev Vet Med 2005; 68: 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.01.006
  32. van Schaik G, Haro F, Mella A, Kruze J. Bayesian analysis to validate a commercial ELISA to detect paratuberculosis in dairy herds of southern Chile. Prev Vet Med 2007; 79: 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.11.005