This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mauldin, J. Articles by Rubin, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mauldin, J. Articles by Rubin, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2005, p. 4847-4851, Vol. 43, No. 9
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.9.4847-4851.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Mumps Virus-Specific Antibody Titers from Pre-Vaccine Era Sera: Comparison of the Plaque Reduction Neutralization Assay and Enzyme Immunoassays

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland 20892,¹ Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218²

Received 10 January 2005/ Returned for modification 11 May 2005/ Accepted 6 June 2005

Mumps virus-neutralizing antibodies are believed to be the most predictable surrogate marker of protective immunity. However, assays used to detect neutralizing antibodies, such as the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) assay, are labor- and time-intensive and consequently are often supplanted by the more rapid and inexpensive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) technique. For virus infections for which international antibody standards exist and are bridged to clinical studies of protection (e.g., measles and rubella), the EIA has been successfully used to determine immune surrogate endpoints, yet no such international reference exists for mumps serology. Since both virus-neutralizing and nonneutralizing antibodies are measured in the EIA, in the absence of a mumps serological standard, the EIA may be prone to yielding false-positive results when utilized for assessing surrogate markers of protective immunity. Moreover, since mumps virus-specific antibody titers are generally low in comparison to antibody levels induced by other viruses and EIA procedures often employ relatively high serum dilution factors, the EIA may be prone to yielding false-negative results. To examine these issues, a PRN assay and two commercially available EIA kits were used to evaluate wild-type mumps virus serological responses in human serum samples from the pre-mumps vaccine era. Our results indicate that the PRN assay is a more sensitive and specific method of measuring serological responses to wild-type mumps virus.