Comparison of seven commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies
- 326 Downloads
Determination of immune status of patients to diphtheria toxin is based mainly on the results of commercially available ELISA kits. The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained by ELISAs from seven different manufacturers: Mikrogen, Immunolab, Sekisui Virotech, NovaTec, Virion\Serion, IBL International and Euroimmun. All assays were performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The concentrations of the anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies in 72 serum samples were calculated on the basis of curves constructed from standards supplied by manufacturers and the new reference material—International Standard for Diphtheria Antitoxin (10/262). The repeatability and reproducibility of all the ELISA kits tested were good. Number of sera with concentrations of the anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies below the WHO-recommended level of protection (0.1 IU/ml) were dependent on the ELISA used: Mikrogen, 20/72 samples (27.7 %); Immunolab, 11/72 samples (15.3 %); Sekisui Virotech, 0/72 samples (0 %); NovaTec 18/72 samples (25.0 %); Serion 12/72 samples (16.7 %); IBL International, 7/72 samples (9.7 %); and Euroimmun, 17/72 samples (23.6 %). However, the results obtained in particular ELISAs, with the exception of Sekisui Virotech, were much more consistent when the concentrations of the anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies in 72 sera measured by using curves constructed from the International Standard 10/262. The data obtained clearly demonstrated that manufacturer-dependent differences between anti-diphtheria IgG ELISA kits exist. The differences in recommendations accepted by the individual manufacturers together with differences shown in our studies in sensitivity greatly affect the clinical interpretation of results.
KeywordsDiphtheria Neutralization Test Diphtheria Toxin Control Seron Diphtheria Toxoid
This work was funded by the National Science Centre under project no. DEC-2011/01/B/NZ7/04370.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Tiwari TSP (2012) Diptheria. In: Brunette GW (ed) CDC health information for international travel 2012—yellow book. Oxford University Press, New York. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2012/chapter-3-infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/diphtheria.htm. Accessed 21 January 2013
- 5.Sheifele DW, Ochnio JJ (2009) The immunological basis for immunization series. Module 2: diphtheria update 2009. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 6.Di Giovine P, Pinto A, Olander RM, Sesardic D, Stickings P, Berbers G, Neal S, Efstratiou A, Paberza R, Dauksiene S, Bujko M, Detcheva A, Joks U, Levent B, von Hunolstein C (2010) External quality assessment for the determination of diphtheria antitoxin in human serum. Clin Vac Immunol 17:1282–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Stickings P, Rigsby P, Coombes L, von Hunolstein C, Ralli L, Pinto A, Sesardic D (2012) Collaborative study for the calibration and commutability assessment of the proposed 1st International Standard for Diphtheria Antitoxin Human. WHO/BS/2012.2192, Geneva. http://www.who.int/biologicals/expert_committee/BS_2192_1st_International_Standard_Diphtheria_Antitoxin_Human.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2013
- 12.Bonilla FA, Bernstein IL, Khan DA, Ballas ZK, Chinen J, Frank MM, Kobrynski LJ, Levinson AI, Mazer B, Nelson RP, Orange JS, Router JM, Shearer WT, Sorensen RU (2005) Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 94(suppl 1):S1–S63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar