In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 16, No. 1 ( 2021-1-26), p. e0244601-
Abstract:
Several commercial Zika virus (ZIKV) serology assays have been developed since the recognition of ZIKV outbreaks as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in 2016. However, test interpretation for ZIKV serology can be challenging due to antibody cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses like dengue virus (DENV). Therefore, we sought to evaluate the performance of eight commercially available ZIKV IgM and IgG assays across three testing platforms, namely, immunochromatographic tests (ICT), ELISAs and immunofluorescence tests (IIFT). The test panel comprised of 278 samples, including acute and convalescent sera or plasma from ZIKV-confirmed, DENV-confirmed, non-ZIKV and non-DENV patients, and residual sera from healthy blood donors. The ZIKV IgM and IgG serology assays yielded higher test sensitivities of 23.5% - 97.1% among ZIKV convalescent samples as compared to 5.6% - 27.8% among ZIKV acute samples; the test specificities were 63.3% - 100% among acute and convalescent DENV, non-DENV samples. Among the ELISAs and IIFTs, the Diapro ZIKV IgM ELISA demonstrated high test sensitivity (96%) and specificity (80%) when tested on early convalescent samples, while the Euroimmun ZIKV IgG ELISA yielded the highest test specificity of 97% - 100% on samples from non-ZIKV patients and healthy blood donors. For rapid ICTs, the LumiQuick IgM rapid ICT yielded low test sensitivity, suggesting its limited utility. We showed that commercial ZIKV IgM and IgG serology assays have differing test performances, with some having moderate to high test sensitivities and specificities when used in a dengue endemic setting, although there were limitations in IgG serology.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.t004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.t005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0244601.s003
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Permalink