Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:18:21.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rubella-specific IgG subclass avidity ELISA and its role in the differentiation between primary rubella and rubella 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, Preston Infirmary, Preston PR1 6PS
P. Morgan-Capner
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Preston Infirmary, Preston PR1 6PS
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 antiglobulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for rubella-specific IgG1 and IgG3 was adapted to measure antibody avidity by incorporating a mild protein denaturant, diethylamine (DEA), into the serum diluent. Sera were tested at varying dilutions, both with and without DEA, if they contained sufficient specific IgG1 or IgG3. The optical density (OD) was measured and curves were plotted. The highest OD (V) was noted and halved (V/2). The distance between the OD curves at V/2 was measured as the DEA shift value.

Sera were examined from people whose sera contained rubella-specific antibodies as a consequence of infection or vaccination in the distant past (24 sera), recent primary rubella (66 sera), symptomatic reinfection (11 sera) or asymptomatic reinfection (64 sera). For specific IgG1 the DEA shift value was <O·6 for cases of rubella in the distant past, compared with >0·8 for the first month after primary infection. The maximum DEA shift value for the sera from cases of reinfection was 0·65.

No serum from cases of rubella in the distant past contained sufficient specific IgG3 to estimate avidity. The sera collected within 1 month of onset of primary rubella gave DEA shift values >O·7 compared with sera from reinfections, which gave DEA shift values <O·6, except for two sera from a case of symptomatic reinfection.

Thus the assessment of specific IgG subclass avidity is of value in differentiating serologically primary rubella from reinfection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 101 , Issue 3 , December 1988 , pp. 591 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

REFERENCES

Cradock-Watson, J. E., Ridehalgh, M. K. S., Anderson, M. J. & Pattison, J. R. (1981). Outcome of asymptomatic infection with rubella virus during pregnancy. Journal of Hygiene 87, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devey, M. E., Bleasdale, K., Lee, S. & Rath, S. (1988). Determination of the functional affinity of IgG1 and lgG4 antibodies to tetanus toxoid by isotype-specific solid-phase assays. Journal of Immunological Methods 106, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, H. N. & Siskind, G. W. (1964). Variation in affinities of antibodies during the immune response. Biochemistry 3, 996–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inouye, S., Hasegawa, A., Matsuno, S. & Katow, S. (1984). Changes in antibody avidity after virus infections: detection by an immunosorbent assay in which a mild protein-denaturing agent is employed. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 20. 525–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, J. B., Mortimer, P. P., Mortimer, P. R., Morgan-Capner, P., Shafi, M. S. & White, G. B. B. (1980). Rubella antibody measured by radial haemolysis. Characterization and performance of a simple screening method for use in diagnostic laboratories. Journal of Hygiene 84, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, O. P. & Meurman, O. H. (1982). An Elisa for the estimation of high-avidity and total specific IgG and IgM antibodies to rubella virus. Journal of Virological Methods 5. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Capner, P., Hodgson, J., Hambling, M. H., Dulake, C., Coleman, T. J., Boswell, P. A., Watkins, R. P., Booth, J., Stern, H., Best, J. M., & Banatvala, J. E. (1985). Detection of rubella-specific IgM in subclinical reinfection in pregnancy. Lancet i. 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Capner, P. (1986) Does rubella reinfection in pregnancy? In public Health Virology. 12 Reports (ed. Mortimer, P. P.). London: Public Health Laboratory Service.Google Scholar
Mortimer, P. P., Tedder, R. S., Hambling, M. H., Shafi, M. S., Burkhardt, F. & Schilt, U. (1981). Antibody capture radioimmunoassay for anti-rubella IgM. Journal of Hygietie 86. 139–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodkey, L. S. & Freeman, M. J. (1970). Variations in the properties of rabbit antibodies during prolonged immunisation by various routes with serum albumin in Freund's complete adjuvant. Immunology 19, 219–224.Google ScholarPubMed
Roitt, I. M., Brostoff, J. & Male, D. K. (1986). Immunology. London: Gower Medical Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Rousseau, S. & Hedman, K. (1988). Rubella infection and reinfection distinguished by avidity of IgG. Lancet i. 1108–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siskind, G. W. & Benecerraf, B. (1969). Cell selection by antigen in the immune response. Advances in Immunology 10, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, H. I. J. & Morgan-Capner, P. (1988). Specific IgG subclass antibody in rubella virus infections. Epidemiology and Infection 100, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed