摘要
目的比较两种免疫酶试剂盒recomWell HEV IgG(swine)ELISA(recom Well )和recomLine HEV IgG(swine)(recom Line )检测猪抗E型肝炎病毒(hepatitis E virus,HEV)IgG的准确性。方法分别采用基因3型和基因4型人HEV(human HEV,hHEV)人工感染无菌猪各2头,采用上述试剂盒检测猪感染后不同天数的血清样品中抗HEV IgG,同时对两头接种PBS液的无菌猪血清样品18份和4头未感染猪的18份血清进行了检测。结果 2头猪人工感染基因3型hHEV后,recomWell检测均于感染后21d出现阳性,并持续56d;recomLine检测,其中1头猪于感染后14d呈阳性,而另1头于感染后21d呈阳性,且均持续56d。2头猪人工感染基因4型hHEV后,两种试剂盒检测,其中1头猪于感染后21d呈阳性,另1头35d呈阳性,并均持续56d仍为阳性。18份对照血清两种试剂盒检测均为阴性。18份未人工感染猪血清中,只有1份两种试剂盒检测均为阳性。两种试剂盒同时检测的共72份样品中,recomWell检出阳性样品23份,阳性率约为32.0%(23/72),recomLine检出阳性样品24份,阳性率约为33.30%(24/72),检出阳性率两者差异不显著(P>0.05);在recomWell检出的23份阳性样品中,recomLine检测均为阳性,两者阳性检出符合率为100%(23/23);recomWell的漏检率约为4.1%(1/24)。结论 recomWellR和recomLine均可用于猪抗HEVIgG的检测,recomLine检测灵敏度略高于recomWell,且操作更简便,不需要特殊昂贵的检测设备,特别适合用于基层检测猪抗HEV IgG。
Objective To compare the accuracy of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of swine anti hepatitis E virus （HEV） IgG. Methods 54 serum samples were collected from six gnotobiotic pigs experimentally inoculated with human HEV （hHEV） genotype 3, genotype 4 and phosphate buffered solution （PBS） on 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 and 56 days post inoculation （DPI）. All samples were detected by recomWell HEV IgG （swine） （recomWell ） and recomLine HEV IgG （swine） （recomLine ）. Eighteen serum samples from 4 uninfected pigs were also detected by the two kits. Results Samples hHEV genotype 3 inoculated pigs detected by recomWell were positive from 21 to 56 DPI, however, serttrn sample from one of the pigs detected by recom- Line presented positive result on 14 DPI, and another pig showed positive on 21 DPI, both pigs remained positive to 56 DPI. For one of the hI-IEV genotype 4 inoculated pigs, its serum samples detected by the two kits showed positive from 21 to 56 DPI, samples of another pig showed positive from 35 to 56 DPI. All serum sam- pies from the two PBS-inoculated pigs were negative when they were detected by the two kits. One of the 18 serum samples from non-inoculated 4 conventional pigs showed positive result detected by the two kits. 23 out of 72 serum samples showed positive results when they were detected by recomWell , the positive rate was 32% （23/72）, and 24 serum samples showed positive when they were detected by recomLine , the positive rate was 33.3% （24/72）. The identified positive rates among the two kits showed no difference （P〉0.05）. The 23 positive serum samples detected by recomWell were also positive when detected by recomLine . The identical positive rates of the two kits were 100% （23/23）. The missed positive serum sample by recomWell was one compared to that by the recomLine , zero, so the missed positive rate of recomWell was 4.1%（1/24）. Conclusion Both kits could be used to detect swine anti HEV IgG. The sensitivity of recomLine is h
出处
《中国动物检疫》
CAS
2010年第8期30-33,共4页
China Animal Health Inspection
