Advertisement

Medical Microbiology and Immunology

, Volume 196, Issue 3, pp 151–155 | Cite as

Comparison of the neutralizing and ELISA antibody titres to measles virus in human sera and in gamma globulin preparations

  • Holger F. RabenauEmail author
  • Branko Marianov
  • Sabine Wicker
  • Regina Allwinn
Original Investigation

Abstract

Measles virus infection as well as measles vaccination induces a long-lasting immune protection. Specific antibodies have been proven to be associated with this immune protection, since measles immunity can be transferred by immune globulin application (passive immunisation). The neutralisation test (NT) is regarded as the gold standard method for measles immunity because it measures functional neutralising antibody, while with the ELISA, which is often based on cell culture grown native virus antigens, predominantly antibodies to the nucleoprotein antigen were detected. To compare the results of NT and ELISA 199 individual sera and 364 gamma globulin samples, which were made from plasma pools, were tested. Qualitative results showed that the sensitivity of the ELISA was 141/144 (97.9%) and specificity was 48/55 (87.3%) when compared to the NT and focused to the patient samples. For the gamma globulin samples the sensitivity and specificity was 100%. As expected no measles NT negative plasma pool samples were found. The present study showed that with increasing NT-titre, the ELISA-values also rise. False negative ELISA results were obtained in 1.5% of patient sera, mainly containing low levels of neutralising antibody. In both antibody tests seropositive specimens revealed a quite good to moderate correlation. Taken together, the measles IgG ELISA is adequately for immunity testing and identifying of seronegative individuals for vaccination.

Keywords

Measles virus Immunity Neutralisation test ELISA antibody titres Gamma globulin preparations 

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen BJ, Parry RP, Doblas D, Samuel D, Warrener L, Andrews N, Brown D (2006) Measles immunity testing: comparison of two measles IgG ELlSAs with plaque reduction neutralisation assay. J Virol Methods 131:209–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cronin M, O’Connell T (2000) Measles outbreak in Republic of Ireland. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2000100060 1.asp
  3. 3.
    Griffin DE (2001) Measles virus. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM (eds) Measles virus in fields virology. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1401–1441Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hesketh L, Charlett A, Farrington P, Miller E, Forsey T, Morgan-Capner P (1997) An evaluation of nine commercial EIA kits for the detection of measles specific IgG. J Virol Methods 66:51–59Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee MS, Nokes DJ, Hsu HM, Lu CF (2000) Protective titres of measles neutralising antibody. J Med Virol 62:511–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markowitz LE, Katz SL (1994) Measles vaccine. In: Plotkin SA, Mortimer EA Jr (eds) Vaccines, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 229–76Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Min-Shi L, Cohen BJ, Hand J, Nokes D (1999) A simplified and standardised neutralization enzyme immunoassay for the quantification of measles neutralizing antibody. J Virol Methods 78:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neumann PW, Weber JM, Jessamine AG, O’Shaughnessy MV (1985) Comparison of measles antihemolysin test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and hemagglutination inhibition test with neutralization test for determination of immune status. J Clin Microbiol 22(2):296–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabenau HF, Weber B (1994) Evaluation of a new automated microneutralization assay for the quantitative detection of neutralizing antibodies against enteroviruses. Zbl Bakt Int J Med Microbiol 280:534–539Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmitz H, Essuman S (1986) Comparison of the neutralizing and ELISA antibody titres to human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) in human sera and in gamma globulin preparations. J Med Virol 20(2):177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siedler A, Leitmeyer K (2004) Relevance of sentinel surveillance systems for the implementation and evaluation of vaccination strategies. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 47:1136–1143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van den Hof S, van Gageldonk-Lafeber AB, van Binnendijk RS, van Gageldonk PG, Berbers GA (2003) Comparison of measles virus-specific antibody titres as measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and virus neutralisation assay. Vaccine 21:4210–4214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    World Health Organisation (2005) Measles fact sheet. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger F. Rabenau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Branko Marianov
    • 1
  • Sabine Wicker
    • 2
  • Regina Allwinn
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Medical VirologyUniversity Hospital, Frankfurt/MainFrankfurt/MainGermany
  2. 2.Occupational Health ServiceUniversity Hospital of FrankfurtFrankfurt/MainGermany

Personalised recommendations