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 Lu, W
Right arrow Articles by Moxley, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lu, W
Right arrow Articles by Moxley, R.
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 3, Issue 2, 119-123
Copyright © 1991 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Articles

A capture-enzyme immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus

W Lu, FA Osorio, MB Rhodes, and RA Moxley

Department of Veterinary Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 68583.

Two enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were developed for the detection of swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) antigens. The 2 EIAs used the same detecting system, a monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, but used different capture systems including a monoclonal antibody (m-EIA) or a polyclonal antibody (p-EIA). The EIAs were compared with the fluorescent antibody test (FAT) and electron microscopy (EM) for the detection of TGEV in intestinal samples of experimentally inoculated gnotobiotic piglets and of conventional diarrheic pigs submitted for diagnosis. In the gnotobiotic piglets experimentally inoculated with TGEV, 81.8% (9/11) were positive for TGEV by p-EIA, and 72.7% (8/11) were positive by m-EIA. In comparison, 81.8% (9/11) were positive by FAT and 27.2% (3/11) were positive by EM. Three noninfected controls were negative by all tests. In the diagnostic samples, 86.0% (43/50) were positive by p-EIA, 68.2% (30/44) were positive by m-EIA, 28.6% (14/49) were positive by IFA, and 38.0% (19/50) were positive by EM. The m-EIA had a higher agreement with FAT and EM than did p-EIA.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.