Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative efficacy of fluorescent antibody test, immunoperoxidase test and enzyme linked immuno sorbent assay in detection of rotavirus in cell culture

  • Original Article
  • Published:
VirusDisease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rotavirus is prevalent worldwide and has been established as a leading cause of mortality due to severe diarrhoea in neonates. Isolation of the virus is a gold standard method for confirmation of rotavirus infection in the host. Propagation of rotavirus in cell culture is a challenge as in many instances the virus does not produce detectable cytopathic effect. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of fluorescent antibody test (FAT), immunoperoxidase test (IPT) and sandwich ELISA (S-ELISA) to detect rotavirus antigen propagated in MA 104 cell line. The intensity of fluorescence and colour development for I-FAT and I-IPT was categorized and the ELISA OD values were analyzed. The overall mean of detection were 5.16 ± 0.47, 5.16 ± 0.54 and 5.66 ± 0.33 for I-FAT, I-IPT and S-ELISA, respectively. Significantly less number of samples were positive in the initial one or two passage, which increased up to 100 % from third/fourth passage onwards. The study concluded that I-FAT, I-IPT and S-ELISA were equally effective in detecting propagated rotavirus in cell line, and the former two tests are suitable for in situ demonstration of the virus while the later could be used to assay antigen in cell culture fluid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anon. European union diagnostic manual on swine fever. Germany: Hanover; 2002. p. 11–6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bohl EH, Theil KW, Saif LJ. Isolation and serotyping of porcine rotaviruses and antigenic comparison with other rotaviruses. J Clin Microbiol. 1984;19:105–11.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li Z, Baker ML, Jiang W, Estes MK, Prasad BV. Rotavirus architecture at subnanometer resolution. J Virol. 2009;83:1754–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Madeley CR, Peiris JS. Methods in virus diagnosis: immunofluorescence revisited. J Clin Virol. 2002;25:121–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McNulty MS. Rotaviruses. J Gen Virol. 1978;40:1–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mirazimi A, Magnusson K, Svensson L. A cytoplasmic region of the NSP4 enterotoxin of rotavirus is involved in retention in the endoplasmic reticulum. J Gen Virol. 2003;84:875–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morera P, Losada A, Fonseca G. Increased of heat shock cognate protein, HSC70, in MA 104 cells following rotavirus infection. Rev Fac Med Unal. 2007;55:224–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nath AJ, Barman NN, Das SK. Faecal excretion of rota virus in naturally infected pigs: an epidemiological study. Ind J Anim Sci. 2007;77:859–61.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schmidt NJ, Dennis J, Lennette EH. Comparison of immunofluorescence and immunoperoxidase staining for identification of rubela virus isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 1978;7:576–83.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sestak K, Musilova J. Isolation of rotavirus strains from naturally infected piglets. Acta Virol. 1994;38:27–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smitalova R, Rodak L, Psikal I, Smid B. Isolation, immunochemical demonstration of field strains of porcine group A rotaviruses and electrophoretic analysis of RNA segments of group A and C rotaviruses. Vet Med. 2006;51:288–95.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Nieuwstadt AP, Cornelissen JBWJ, Zetstra T. Comparison of two methods for detection of transmissible gastroenteritis virus in faeces of pigs with experimentally induced infection. Am J Vet Res. 1988;49:1836–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zentner BS, Margalith M, Galil A, Halevy B, Sarov I. Detection of rotavirus-specific Ig G antibodies by immunoperoxidase assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Virol Meth. 1985;11:199–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam, India

    N. N. Barman, B. K. Neog & G. Das

  2. Pasteur Institute of India, Coonoor, Nilgiris, 643 103, Tamil Nadu, India

    A. J. Nath

Authors
  1. N. N. Barman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. Nath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. K. Neog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. N. Barman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barman, N.N., Nath, A.J., Neog, B.K. et al. Comparative efficacy of fluorescent antibody test, immunoperoxidase test and enzyme linked immuno sorbent assay in detection of rotavirus in cell culture. VirusDis. 25, 239–242 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-014-0196-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-014-0196-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation