Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2000, p. 1670-1671, Vol. 38, No. 4
PanBio Pty., Ltd., Windsor, Queensland,
Australia,1 and Department of Medical
Microbiology, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia2
Received 29 November 1999/Returned for modification 8 January
2000/Accepted 3 February 2000
An immunochromatographic test for the rapid determination of
immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies to Burkholderia
pseudomallei was evaluated by using sera from bacteriologically
confirmed melioidosis patients and high-risk and clinically suspected
patients, along with disease control groups. The sensitivities were 100 and 93% for the IgG and IgM tests, respectively, while the specificity was 95% for both assays. The test was rapid and simple to perform, with results obtained in 10 min.
Melioidosis is an infection caused
by the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei, which is a
motile gram-negative bacillus found in soil and water. Infection is
obtained through inhalation or ingestion of the bacterium, with most
patients presenting with nonspecific symptoms (3). Mortality
can be as high as 90% when the disease progresses and acute septicemia
develops (6, 10). Due to the nonspecific symptoms and the
speed at which death can occur, rapid and specific diagnostic tests are essential.
While the definitive diagnosis for melioidosis is made by bacterial
culture (4), the most common method for serodiagnosis is the
indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA) (1, 7). Although IHA
has the advantage of speed over culture techniques, interference can be
observed due to background antibody levels present in patients from
areas where melioidosis is endemic, making a distinction between
current and past infections difficult (11, 12). The IHA has
also been reported to have low sensitivity in serum from patients with
acute septicemia (5). Due to these limitations, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and indirect
fluorescent-antibody assays (IFAs) are becoming more popular tools for
the serodiagnosis of melioidosis. Both the IFA and the ELISA have been
reported to have good sensitivities and specificities, though the IFA
results can be subjective, and the test requires a fluorescent
microscope (2). Indirect immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM
ELISAs have been reported to be useful in the presumptive diagnosis of
melioidosis and in laboratories where large numbers of samples require
testing (2, 8). Indirect IgG ELISAs also have the ability to
discriminate between past and active infections in areas where the
disease is endemic (5), while the IgM ELISA has high
sensitivity in patients with acute septicemia (8).
This study investigated the ability of the PanBio IgM and IgG
immunochromatographic test to diagnose melioidosis and discriminate between other diseases that present with similar clinical symptoms. Thirty samples were obtained from patients who were culture positive for B. pseudomallei. A further 15 samples from patients who
presented with symptoms including prolonged fever, nonhealing wounds,
pneumonia, cellulitis, pleural effusions, and unresolved cough were
tested along with 14 samples from healthy farmers who are known to be at risk for melioidosis. The disease controls from an area of melioidosis endemicity (Malaysia) included sera from patients with
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 4),
Chlamydia pneumoniae (n = 4),
Legionella spp. (n = 5), and tuberculosis
(n = 5). Disease controls from Queensland, Australia,
included sera from patients with leptospirosis (n = 10)
and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection (n = 10), as
well as samples from patients with antibodies to rheumatoid factor (RF;
n = 10) and antinuclear antibodies (ANA; n = 10). Blood donors from areas of melioidosis endemicity, such as
Malaysia (n = 3) and Thailand (n = 30),
were also tested, along with blood donors from an area of
nonendemicity, such as Queensland, Australia (n = 40).
All samples were frozen at The melioidosis IgM and IgG test was presented as a single strip
consisting of the IgM test on one side and the IgG test on the other.
The test was performed in glass tubes by adding 1 µl of serum
obtained with a measuring loop to 120 µl of strip buffer. Once the
serum was mixed by gently shaking the vials, a test strip was added.
Exactly 10 min after adding the test strip, the results were read. A
control line was included in both sides of the test to ensure that each
assay had run correctly. A positive reaction was defined as a visible
test and control line, and a negative reaction was defined as a
positive control line only (Fig. 1).
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Evaluation of a New Commercially Available Immunoglobulin M and
Immunoglobulin G Immunochromatographic Test for Diagnosis of
Melioidosis Infection
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
70°C prior to performing the assay.

View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
(a) Diagrammatical representation of the assay
procedure. (b) Interpretation of assay results.
The IFA was performed as previously described (2), with
modifications. The antigen was coated, air dried, and heat fixed onto
wells of Teflon-coated slides. Each serum sample was prepared in
doubling dilutions from 1:80 to 1:320 and allowed to incubate at 37°C
for 30 min. The slide was washed three times in phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4) prior to the addition of fluorescein-labelled anti-human IgM and IgG antibodies. Following an incubation for a
further 30 min, the slide was washed three times, air dried, and
mounted with buffered glycerol and viewed under a UV microscope. Results were scored as 3+, 2+, 1+, or negative as compared with positive and negative control sera. The lower limit of a positive cutoff was a score of 1+ at a dilution of 1:80. Serum samples demonstrating a fluorescence intensity of 3+ or 2+ at a dilution of
1:320 were considered to have a titer of
320.
The sera from confirmed and clinically suspected melioidosis patients
were characterized by IFA. All culture-confirmed cases were positive by
the IFA, which detected the total amount of specific IgM and IgG
present in the sample. Both the IgM and the IgG rapid test results also
correlated well with the culture results, producing a sensitivity of
100% for the IgG assay and 93% for the IgM assay (Table
1). There was a significant correlation
between the number of positive test results and the IFA titer (IgM
assay, chi-square test for trend = 18.798, P < 0.0001; IgG assay, chi-square test for trend = 18.235, P < 0.001). Of the samples from patients with clinically suspected melioidosis, five were negative by both the IFA
and the rapid test. Of the 10 IFA-positive samples, five were positive
for IgM and five were positive for IgG by the rapid test. When the
presence of IgM or IgG was taken as a positive result, 8 of 10 IFA-positive samples were detected.
|
The IgG rapid test was found to have 100% specificity, with no cross-reactivity occurring with sera from patients with diseases that present with similar clinical symptoms (18 of 18). The IgM assay showed some cross-reactivity with sera from patients with infections due to Pseudomonas, Legionella, and tuberculosis (3 of 18, 83% specificity). Of the Thai blood donors tested, 20 and 15% were positive for IgG and IgM, respectively. This may reflect subclinical or undiagnosed melioidosis, since the disease is endemic in Thailand (9). In contrast, only 5% of the Australian blood donors were positive for IgG, with no samples showing detectable levels of IgM. All sera tested from patients with antibodies to Leptospira, EBV, and RF and with ANA were negative by both the IgM and IgG assays. The overall specificity of the PanBio IgM and IgG rapid test was 93% (113 of 121 [Table 1]).
This study suggests that the PanBio melioidosis IgM and IgG rapid test had equal sensitivity to both bacterial culture techniques and a reference IFA. The specificity of the rapid test was also high, indicating that it should be a useful alternative for the qualitative diagnosis of melioidosis, especially in laboratories with limited equipment or when a rapid diagnosis is necessary.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: PanBio Pty., Ltd., 116 Lutwyche Rd., Windsor, Queensland 4030, Australia. Phone: 61-7-33571177. Fax: 61-7-33571222. E-mail: peter_devine{at}panbio.com.au.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Alexander, A. D., D. L. Huxsoll, A. R. Warner, V. Shepler, and A. Dorsey. 1970. Serological diagnosis of human melioidosis with indirect hemagglutination and complement fixation tests. Appl. Microbiol. 20:825-833[Medline]. |
| 2. | Ashdown, L. R., R. W. Johnson, J. M. Koehler, and C. A. Cooney. 1989. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the diagnosis of clinical and subclinical melioidosis. J. Infect. Dis. 160:253-260[Medline]. |
| 3. | Chaowagul, W., N. J. White, D. A. B. Dance, Y. Wattanagoon, P. Naigowit, T. M. E. Looareesuwan, and N. Pitakwatchara. 1989. Melioidosis: a major cause of community acquired septicemia in northern Thailand. J. Infect. Dis. 159:890-899[Medline]. |
| 4. |
Dance, D. A. B.
1991.
Melioidosis: the tip of the iceberg?
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
4:52-60 |
| 5. | Dharakul, T., S. Songsivilai, N. Anuntagool, W. Chaowagul, S. Wongbunnate, P. Intachote, and S. Sirisinha. 1997. Diagnostic value of an antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using affinity-purified antigen in an area endemic for melioidosis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 56:418-423. |
| 6. | Guard, R. W., F. A. Khafagi, M. C. Brigden, and L. R. Ashdown. 1984. Melioidosis in far north Queensland. A clinical and epidemiological review of twenty cases. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 33:467-473. |
| 7. | Hatsadee, A., K. R. Silpapojakul, R. Wansit, and M. Pornpatkul. 1990. Diagnostic value of the indirect hemagglutination test for melioidosis in an endemic area. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 42:248-253. |
| 8. |
Kunakorn, M.,
P. Boonma,
K. Khupulsup, and B. Petchclai.
1990.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunoglobulin M specific antibody for the diagnosis of melioidosis.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
28:1249-1253 |
| 9. | Leelarasamee, A., and S. Bovornkitti. 1989. Melioidosis: review and update. Rev. Infect. Dis. 11:413-425[Medline]. |
| 10. | Puthucheary, S. D., N. Parasakthi, and M. K. Lee. 1992. Septicaemic melioidosis: a review of 50 cases from Malaysia. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 86:683-685[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 11. | Strauss, J., M. A. D. Alexander, G. Rapmond, E. Gan, and A. E. Dorsey. 1969. Melioidosis in Malaysia. III. Antibodies to Pseudomonas pseudomallei in the human population. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 18:703-707. |
| 12. | Vadivelu, J., S. D. Puthucheary, G. S. Gendeh, and N. Parasakthi. 1995. Serodiagnosis of melioidosis in Malaysia. Singap. Med. J. 36:299-302. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»