Comparison of five different methods of rubella IgM antibody testing

Evaluation of rubella IgM enzyme immunoassays

BACKGROUND

Rubella virus generally causes a mild fever, rash illness similar in clinical presentation to infections by other viruses including measles and parvovirus B19. Rubella infections in pregnant women in the first trimester carry a high risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) which can result in severe congenital defects in the infants. The goal of rubella immunization programs is therefore to eliminate CRS. The primary test for the laboratory confirmation of rubella is IgM serology. It is therefore important to evaluate currently available commercial rubella IgM immunoassays to ensure high quality rubella diagnostic testing.

STUDY DESIGN

In this study, we compared the performance of seven commercial rubella IgM enzyme immunoassays (EIA) (Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring, Wampole, Captia, Sigma and Abbott Axsym) using well-defined panels of sera from rubella and non-rubella/rash-illness cases.

RESULTS

The Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring and Wampole rubella IgM EIAs all performed similarly for sensitivity (range of 74.1-76.8%) and specificity (range of 93.9-96.1%). Relative to the other assays, the Axsym had a higher sensitivity (78.9%) but lower specificity (86.5%). The Captia assay had the lowest overall sensitivity (66.4%), while the Sigma assay had a lower specificity (85.6%) in relation to the other assays.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the Meddens, Denka Seiken, Behring and Wampole rubella IgM EIAs are comparable in their overall performance with respect to sensitivity and specificity.

Comparison of four enzyme immunoassays for detection of immunoglobulin M antibodies against rubella virus

We evaluated four tests for the detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin M antibodies. Primarily, consecutive serum samples were tested by two different assays. Selected panels of sera from patients with proven or likely recent rubella and false-positive and true-negative results in the two primary assays were further tested with two recently developed, fully automated techniques. The four tests were comparable in overall accuracy, but their dynamic ranges may differ considerably. Ways to optimize the predictive values are discussed. We conclude that automated assays may be used without causing significant changes in diagnostic accuracy or distortions in notifications of the incidence of rubella compared with the use of established tools.

Detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM, and IgA antibodies by immunoblot assays

Immunoblot (IB) assays were developed for detection of rubella virus (RV)-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgM, and IgA antibodies in human serum following natural infection or immunization. IB assays performed under nonreducing conditions were compared with those performed under reducing conditions and with immunoprecipitation assays. Significant loss of antigenicity (greater than 90%) of RV E1 and E2 proteins was observed when IB assays were performed in the presence of 2-mercaptoethanol as compared with assays under nonreducing conditions. In contrast, the antigenicity of RV capsid protein was not influenced by reducing agents. Sensitivity of IB for RV-specific IgG antibodies was determined to be 0.01 IU/ml under nonreducing conditions. In the determination of RV-specific IgM and IgA antibodies by IB, pretreatment of serum with protein G to remove competing high-affinity RV-specific IgG or rheumatoid factor significantly improved assay sensitivity. IB assays were observed to be superior to immunoprecipitation assays in their ability to better define the specificities of RV-specific antibodies and to detect antibodies of all immunoglobulin classes. However, the conformational sensitivity of RV protein antigenicity should be an important consideration in the interpretation of RV-specific antibodies by IB assays.

The development of an M antibody capture ELISA for rubella IgM

An M antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for rubella IgM was developed. The enzyme label was prepared from a monoclonal antibody raised against rubella haemagglutinin (Tedder et al., 1982). Paired sera from acute rubella infections and vaccines as well as sera from blood donors, antenatal patients and patients whose sera contained rheumatoid factor and patients with acute non-rubella infections were tested by this method.

Separation of hemagglutination-inhibiting immunoglobulin M antibody to rubella virus in human serum by high-performance liquid chromatography

High-performance liquid chromatography was successfully used to separate hemagglutination-inhibiting immunoglobulin M (IgM) rubella virus antibody from IgG rubella virus antibody in human serum. The fractionation by high-performance liquid chromatography was as effective as sucrose density gradient centrifugation in separating IgM antibody from IgG antibody.