Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:45:16.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of radioimmunoassay and the gel filtration technique for routine diagnosis of rubella during pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

H. O. Kangro
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, The London Hospital, London, E1
C. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, The London Hospital, London, E1
R. B. Heath
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, The London Hospital, London, E1
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.

Radioimmunoassay (RIA) for rubella-specific IgM antibodies was compared with haemagglutination-inhibition (HI) in conjunction with gel filtration for the diagnosis of rubella infection in pregnant women during a 1-year period. In total 476 women were investigated of whom 221 were tested for rubella IgM. Both techniques gave positive results with 64 sera, and RIA alone with one additional serum.

Difficulties associated with the removal of non-specific HI activity were encountered with four sera all of which were negative by RIA.

RIA was found to have practical advantages over the gel filtration method but is at present technically more difficult to perform.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

References

Best, J. M., Banatvala, J. E. & Watson, D. (1969). Serum IgM and IgG responses in postnatally acquired rubella. Lancet ii, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caul, E. O., Smyth, G. W. & Clarke, S. K. R. (1974). A simplified method for the detection of rubella-specific IgM employing sucrose density gradient fractionation and 2-mercaptoethanol. Journal of Hygiene 73, 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cradock-Watson, J. E., Ridehalgh, M. K. S., Pattison, J. R., Anderson, M. J. & Kangro, H. O. (1979). Comparison of immunofluorescence and radioimmunoassay for detecting IgM antibody in infants with the congenital rubella syndrome. Journal of Hygiene 83, 413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haukenes, G. & Blom, H. (1975). False positive rubella virus haemagglutination inhibition reactions: occurrence and disclosure. Medical Microbiology and Immunology 161, 99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kangro, H. O., Pattison, J. R. & Heath, R. B. (1978). The detection of rubella-specific IgM antibodies by radioimmunoassay. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 59, 577.Google ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, J. S. (1965). In Progress in Clinical Rheumatology, (ed. Dixon, A. J.), p. 1. London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar
Meurman, O. H., Viljanen, M. K. &, Granfors, K. (1977). Solid-phase radioimmunoassay of rubella virus immunoglobulin M antibodies. Comparison with sucrose density gradient centrifugation test. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5, 257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R. & Dane, D. S. (1975). The routine serological investigation of cases and contacts of rubella. Journal of Hygiene 75, 91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R., Jackson, C. M., Hiscock, J. A., Cradock-Watson, J. E. & Ridehalgh, M. K. S. (1978). Comparison of methods for detecting specific IgM antibody in infants with congenital rubella. Journal of Medical Microbiology 11, 411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R. & Mace, J. E. (1973). Rubella screening tests. Journal of Clinical Pathology 26, 161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R. & Mace, J. E. (1975). The detection of specific IgM antibodies following infection with rubella virus. Journal of Clinical Pathology 28, 377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R., Mace, J. E. & Dane, D. S. (1976). The detection and avoidance of false-positive reactions in tests for rubella-specific IgM. Journal of Medical Microbiology 9, 355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed