Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:22:28.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The avidity of specific IgM detected in primary rubella and reinfection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. I. J. Thomas  and
P. Morgan-Capner
H. I. J. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, PO Box 202, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston PR2 4HG.
P. Morgan-Capner
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, PO Box 202, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston PR2 4HG.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An IgM capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for rubella-specific IgM was used to assess the avidity of specific IgM by comparing the results obtained with and without a mild protein denaturant in the washing fluid used after incubation of IgM with rubella haemagglutinating antigen. An avidity index (AI) was calculated with AIs < 50% considered to indicate low avidity. Sera from recent primary rubella, rubella reinfection and from patients persistently reactive for specific IgM were tested. Urea and diethylamine (DEA) were compared as the protein denaturants. Twenty-six of 28 sera from cases of primary rubella gave an AI < 50% with DEA, compared with 25 of 28 with urea. Seventeen of 20 sera from cases of reinfection gave an AI > 50% with DEA whereas only 14 of 20 had a similarly high avidity with urea. Eight of 10 sera from 4 cases of persistent specific IgM reactivity gave AIs > 50% with DEA, although this was reduced to 5 when urea was used. Thus a difference has been demonstrated between the avidity of specific IgM in primary infection from that demonstrated after a secondary antigenic challenge (reinfection). This may help in serologically distinguishing primary infection from reinfection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 489 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Morgan-Capner, P, Hodgson, J, Hambling, MH et al. , Detection of rubella-specific IgM in subclinical reinfection in pregnancy. Lancet 1985; I: 244–6.Google Scholar
2.Thomas, HIJ, Morgan-Capner, P. Specific IgM subclass antibody in rubella virus infections. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 100: 443–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hedman, K, Rousseau, SA. Measurement of avidity of specific IgG for verification of recent primary rubella. J Med Virol 1989; 27: 288–92.Google Scholar
4.Thomas, HIJ, Morgan-Capner, P. Rubella-specific IgG subclass avidity ELISA and its role in the differentiation between primary rubella and rubella reinfection. epidemiol Infect 1988; 101: 591–8.Google Scholar
5.Pattison, JR, Dane, DS, Mace, JE. Persistence of specific IgM after natural infection with rubella virus. Lancet 1975; I: 185.Google Scholar
6.Best, JM, Palmer, SJ, Morgan-Capner, P, Hodgson, J. A comparison of Rubazyme-M and MACRIA for the detection of rubella-specific IgM. J Virol Methods 1984; 8: 99–109.Google Scholar
7.Devey, ME, Steward, MW. The role of antibody affinity in the performance of solid phase assays. In: Kemeny, DM, Challacombe, SJ, eds. ELISA and other solid phase immunoassays. Chichester; John Wiley, 1988; 135–53.Google Scholar
8.Sarvas, H, Makela, O. Haptenated bacteriophage in the assay of antibody quantity and affinity: maturation of an immune response. Immunochem 1970; 7: 933–43.Google Scholar
9.Wu, C-Y, Cinader, B.. Dose- and time-dependent changes in the binding capacity of IgM antibody. Eur J Immunol 1972; 2: 398–405.Google Scholar
10.Huchet, R, Feldmann, M. Studies on antibody affinity in mice. Eur J Immunol 1973; 3: 49–55.Google Scholar
11.Roitt, I, Brostoff, J, Male, DK.Immunology. London: Gower Publishing, 1985.Google Scholar
12.Webster, RG. The immune response to influenza virus. III. Changes in the avidity and specificity of early IgM and IgG antibodies. Immunol 1968; 14: 39–52.Google Scholar
13.Morgan-Capner, P, Hudson, P, Wright, J, Thomas, HIJ. Rubella. In: Wreghitt, TJ, Morgan-Capner, P, eds. ELISA in the clinical microbiology laboratory. London: Public Health Laboratory Service, 1990, 48–60.Google Scholar
14.Mortimer, PP, Tedder, RS, Hambling, MH, Shan, MS, Burkhardt, F, Schilt, U. Antibody capture radioimmunoassay for anti-rubella IgM. J Hyg 1981; 86: 139–53.Google Scholar
15.Lehtonen, OP, Meurman, OH. An ELISA for the estimation of high-avidity and total specific IgG and IgM antibodies to rubella virus. J Virol Methods 1982; 5: 1–10.Google Scholar
16.Werblin, TP, Siskind, GW. Distribution of antibody affinities: technique of measurement. Immunochem 1972; 9: 987–1011.Google Scholar
17.O'Shea, S, Best, JM, Banatvala, JE, Shepherd, WM. Development and persistence of class-specific antibodies in serum and nasopharyngeal washings of rubella vaccinees. J Infect Dis 1985; 151: 89–98.Google Scholar