Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T11:43:53.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IgG, IgA and IgM responses in acute rubella determined by the immunofluorescent technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

J. E. Cradock-Watson ,
M. S. Bourne  and
Elise M. Vandervelde
J. E. Cradock-Watson
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Withington Hospital, Manchester M20 8LR
M. S. Bourne
Affiliation:
University of Salford Health Service
Elise M. Vandervelde
Affiliation:
Virus Reference Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
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.

The indirect immunofluorescent technique has been used to study the specific immunoglobulin responses in twelve adult cases of acute uncomplicated rubella. IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies increased virtually simultaneously. IgG antibody persisted throughout the period of study but showed a slight tendency to fall in titre after 7 months. IgM antibody was detected in nine cases. In these patients it was present in high titre 5–15 days after the rash but was not detected after 20 days. IgA antibody was detected in all cases. It was present in high titre 5–20 days after the rash but was no longer detectable after 29 days except in one patient who had a very low titre at 78 days. The presence of specific IgA and IgM indicates recent rubella in uncomplicated cases, and if the immunofluorescent method is used both types of antibody should be sought.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 473 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

References

REFERENCES

Banatvala, J. E., Best, J. M., Kennedy, E. A., Smith, E. E. & Spence, M. E. (1967). A serological method for demonstrating recent infection by rubella virus. British Medical Journal iii, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baublis, J. V. & Brown, G. C. (1968). Specific response of the immunoglobulins to rubella infection. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 128, 206.Google Scholar
Best, J. M., Banatvala, J. E. & Watson, D. (1969). Serum IgM and IgG responses in postnatally acquired rubella. Lancet ii, 65.Google Scholar
Bürgin-Wolff, A., Hernandez, R. & Just, M. (1971). Separation of rubella IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies by gel filtration on agarose. Lancet ii, 1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. M., Ducharme, C. P., Carpenter, C. A. & Deibel, R. (1968). Rubella antibody in IgG and IgM immunoglobulins detected by immunofluorescence. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 72, 760.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, I. R., Norins, L. C. & Julian, A. J. (1967). Competition between, and effectiveness of, IgG and IgM antibodies in indirect fluorescent antibody and other tests. Journal of Immunology 98, 143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmyter, J., South, M. A. & Rawls, W. E. (1971). The IgM antibody response in rubella during pregnancy. Journal of Medical Microbiology 4, 107.Google Scholar
Fraser, K. B., Shirodaria, P. V. & Stanford, C. F. (1971). Fluorescent staining of human IgM. British Medical Journal iii, 707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, J. D., Peterson, V., Stout, M. & Murphy, A. M. (1971). Single-sample diagnosis of recent rubella by fractionation of antibody on Sephadex G-200 column. Journal of Clinical Pathology 24, 547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haire, M. & Hadden, D. S. M. (1970). Immunoglobulin responses in rubella and its complications. British Medical Journal iii, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, I. A. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1962). Polyoma transformation of hamster cell clones – an investigation of genetic factors affecting cell competence. Virology 16, 147.Google Scholar
Newman, S., Horta-Barbosa, L. & Sever, J. L. (1969). Serological tests for rubella. Lancet ii, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogra, P. L., Kerr-Grant, D., Umana, G., Dzierba, J. & Weintraub, D. (1971). Antibody response in serum and nasopharynx after naturally acquired and vaccine-induced infection with rubella virus. New England Journal of Medicine 285, 1333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rygaard, J. & Olsen, W. (1969). Interference filters for improved immunofluorescence microscopy. Acta Pathologica et Microbiologica Scandinavica 76, 146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schluederberg, A. (1965). Immune globulins in human viral infections. Nature, London 205, 1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K. M. & Tobin, J. O'H. (1970). Isolation of rubella virus from abortion material. British Medical Journal ii, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesekari, T. & Vaheri, A. (1968). Rubella: a method for rapid diagnosis of a recent infection by demonstration of the IgM antibodies. British Medical Journal i, 221.Google Scholar
Vesikari, T., Vaheri, A. & Leintkki, P. (1971). Antibody response to rubella virion (V) and soluble (S) antigens in rubella infection and following vaccination with live attenuated rubella virus. Archiv für die gesamte Virusforschung 35, 25.Google Scholar