JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carman, S
Right arrow Articles by Nilsson, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carman, S
Right arrow Articles by Nilsson, E
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 14, Issue 2, 97-105
Copyright © 2002 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Evaluation Studies

Field validation of a commercial blocking ELISA to differentiate antibody to transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and porcine respiratory coronavirus and to identify TGEV-infected swine herds

S Carman, G Josephson, B McEwen, G Maxie, M Antochi, K Eernisse, G Nayar, P Halbur, G Erickson, and E Nilsson

Laboratory Services Division, University of Guelph, ON, Canada.

A commercially available blocking ELISA was analyzed for its ability to identify antibodies to porcine coronaviruses (transmissible gastroenteritis virus [TGEV] or porcine respiratory coronavirus [PRCV]), to differentiate antibodies to TGEV and PRCV, and to identify TGEV-infected herds. Nine sera from uninfected pigs, 34 sera from 16 pigs experimentally infected with TGEV, and sera from 10 pigs experimentally infected with PRCV were evaluated using both the TGEV/PRCV blocking ELISA and a virus neutralization (VN) assay. The ELISA was not consistently effective in identifying pigs experimentally infected with TGEV until 21 days postinfection. Sera from 100 commercial swine herds (1,783 sera; median 15 per herd) were similarly evaluated using both tests. Thirty of these commercial herds had a clinical history of TGEV infection and a positive TGEV fluorescent antibody test recorded at necropsy within the last 35 months, while 70 herds had no history of clinical TGEV infection. The blocking ELISA and the VN showed good agreement (kappa 0.84) for the detection of porcine coronavirus antibody (TGEV or PRCV). The sensitivity (0.933) of the ELISA to identify TGEV-infected herds was good when considered on a herd basis. The ELISA was also highly specific (0.943) for the detection of TGEV-infected herds when the test results were evaluated on a herd basis. When sera from specific age groups were compared, the ELISA identified a greater proportion (0.83) of pigs in herds with TGEV antibody when suckling piglets were used. In repeatability experiments, the ELISA gave consistent results when the same sera were evaluated on different days (kappa 0.889) and when sera were evaluated before and after heating (kappa 0.888). The blocking ELISA was determined to be useful for herd monitoring programs and could be used alone without parallel use of the VN assay for the assessment of large swine populations for the detection of TGEV-infected herds.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.