Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2001, p. 3902-3905, Vol. 39, No. 11
Division of Virology, Department of Medical
Microbiology,1 and Department of
Pediatrics,2 University Hospital RWTH
Aachen, D-52057 Aachen, Germany
Received 10 May 2001/Returned for modification 1 July 2001/Accepted 19 August 2001
The Enzygnost anti-Epstein-Barr virus enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) system, which is based on a defined antigen mixture and on detection of antibodies of the immunoglobulin G (IgG),
IgM, and IgA classes, was evaluated for its reliability in
diagnosing Epstein-Barr virus infections in childhood. With samples
from 66 children, the Epstein-Barr virus status and the infection phase
were defined by indirect immunofluorescence and anticomplement
fluorescence assays: 11 children were seronegative, 8 had a primary
infection, 20 had a recent primary or past infection, and in 27 a
reactivated Epstein-Barr virus infection was diagnosed. When
applying the Enzygnost ELISAs, 15 serum samples (22.7%) were not
interpretable due to indeterminate results in at least one of the
assays used and were therefore excluded from further evaluation. The
respective sensitivities and specificities for the diagnosis of
seronegativity were 100 and 100%, those for the diagnosis of primary
infection were 100 and 97%, those for the diagnosis of recent primary
or past infection were 100 and 52%, and those for the diagnosis of
reactivated infection were 10 and 100%. This poor performance of the
Enzygnost system with reactivated infections is due to the prerequisite
of an IgG antibody value of >650 IU/ml for the diagnosis of viral
activity, which was fulfilled in only two of the children. Despite the
high rate of indeterminate results, the Enzygnost system
is useful in diagnosing acute and past Epstein-Barr virus infection in
childhood. For serological diagnosis of viral activity in childhood, a
supplementary assay is necessary.
In childhood, the diagnosis of
typical infectious mononucleosis is based on clinical findings plus a
confirmatory serological test. In the setting of a pediatric university
hospital, however, a number of children suffer from atypical or
hazardous manifestations of acute and prolonged or reactivated
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections, while heterophile antibodies are
often absent in childhood (5). A specific assay for the
detection of anti-EBV antibodies is mandatory for the diagnosis of
these atypical or heterophile antibody-negative pediatric cases.
Determination of the serology for antibodies against EBV by indirect
immunofluorescence (IDIF) and anticomplement immunofluorescence (ACIF) is regarded as the reference method
(12). Antibodies to viral capsid antigen (VCA) and early
antigen (EA) are detected by IDIF, and antibodies to EBV nuclear
antigen (EBNA) are detected by ACIF. This standard serology is well
documented (16) and is an appropriate tool for the
diagnosis of EBV infections in childhood (1, 6, 7, 13).
Recently, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) system for the
diagnosis of EBV infections was developed (Enzygnost Anti-EBV;
Dade-Behring, Marburg, Germany). The test utilizes a defined mixture of
the relevant EBV antigens EA, VCA, and EBNA-1. Diagnosis of the
different stages of EBV infection is based on the determination of
EBV-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG, and IgA antibodies with this
assay. The detection of anti-EBV antibodies of the IgM and IgG classes
is specific and sensitive for the identification of primary or past EBV
infections (2, 3, 8, 9, 15, 19), and determination of IgA
anti-EBV levels in patients with enhanced IgG anti-EBV antibody values (>650 U/ml) enables chronic or reactivated EBV infections to be diagnosed (4). However, no evaluation of the
Enzygnost-based diagnosis of primary, recent, and prolonged or
reactivated EBV infections in childhood is available. The aim of the
present study was to evaluate the application of virus-specific IgM,
IgG, and IgA antibody detection with the Enzygnost anti-EBV ELISA for
the diagnosis of the different stages of EBV infections in childhood in
comparison with the IDIF and ACIF reference assays.
Patients.
Samples (n = 66) from children
(age range, 1 to 12 years; mean age, 6.5 ± 3.5 years) were
analyzed. All specimens had been submitted by physicians from the
Department of Pediatrics for routine diagnosis, either to confirm a
primary EBV infection presenting with the typical clinical picture or
to rule out an acute, prolonged, or reactivated infection with an
atypical clinical presentation.
IDIF and ACIF.
IDIF and ACIF were performed with Merifluor
assays (Meridian Diagnostics, Bad Homburg, Germany). The EBV IgG and
IgM IFA for detection of IgG and IgM anti-VCA, the EBV EA IgG
IFA for detection of IgG anti-EA-D and -EA-R, and the EBNA
Ab ACIF for detection of anti-EBNA were performed according to
the manufacturer's recommendations. All serum samples were preabsorbed
with anti-IgG antibodies prior to testing for IgM antibodies.
Antibodies specific for VCA and EBNA with a titer exceeding 1:10 were
considered positive. Anti-EA antibodies with a titer greater than 1:40
were considered indicative of an reactivated infection
(10). The antibody patterns were interpreted as previously
described (16): IgG anti-VCA, IgM anti-VCA, IgG anti-EA,
and anti-EBNA negative, EBV negative; IgG anti-VCA positive, IgM
anti-VCA positive, IgG anti-EA positive, and anti-EBNA negative, acute
primary EBV infection; IgG anti-VCA positive, IgM anti-VCA positive at
Enzygnost Anti-EBV ELISA.
The Enzygnost Anti-EBV assays for
the detection of EBV-specific IgG, IgM, and IgA (Dade-Behring) were
performed using an automated system (ELISA Processor III, Dade-Behring)
according to the manufacturer's protocol. Indeterminate results were
not reanalyzed. Serum samples were preabsorbed with anti-IgG antibodies
prior to analysis with the IgM and IgA ELISAs. Using the IgG and IgM
assays, samples with a final optical density (OD) ranging
between 0.1 and 0.2 were considered indeterminate, while samples with
an OD of greater than 0.2 were considered positive. The cutoff OD for
the detection of IgA anti-EBV was 0.6. IgG anti-EBV antibody values
were quantified with the Statistical analysis.
For all statistical tests and graphs,
a statistical software package (MedCalc, Mariakerke, Belgium) was used.
The concordance of EBV serodiagnosis with both test systems and
the accuracy are summarized in Table 1.
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.3902-3905.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Application of Virus-Specific Immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG,
and IgA Antibody Detection with a Polyantigenic Enzyme-Linked
Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus
Infections in Childhood
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
1:20, any result for IgG anti-EA, and anti-EBNA negative, recent
primary EBV infection; IgG anti-VCA positive, IgM anti-VCA negative,
IgG anti-EA negative, and anti-EBNA positive, past EBV infection; and
IgG anti-VCA positive, any result for IgM anti-VCA, IgG anti-EA
positive, and anti-EBNA positive, reactivated EBV infection.
-method as recommended by the manufacturer,
and the results were expressed as international units per milliliter
according to the Medical Research Council Research Standard A, 66/235,
for infectious mononucleosis (National Institute for Biological
Standards and Control, World Health Organization, United Kingdom).
According to the manufacturer's protocol, all sera were tested in a
first step with the IgG and IgM ELISAs. Subsequently, samples suspected of EBV reactivation due to an IgG value of >650 IU/ml were analyzed with the IgA ELISA. The results were interpreted as recommended by the
supplier: IgG OD of <0.1 and IgM OD of <0.1, EBV negative; IgG OD of
>0.2 and IgM OD of <0.1, past EBV infection; IgG OD of <0.1 and IgM
OD of >0.2, acute EBV infection; IgG level of <650 IU/ml and IgM OD
of >0.2, acute EBV infection or polyclonal response; and IgG level of
>650 IU/ml, IgA OD of >0.6, and any IgM OD result, chronic or
reactivated EBV infection.
![]()
RESULTS
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
TABLE 1.
Evaluation of the Enzygnost ELISA system for the
diagnosis of EBV infections in pediatric patients (n = 66) compared to diagnosis by reference IDIF pattern
Seronegative patients. Of the 66 children, 11 were seronegative for EBV infection according to IDIF; 10 of these children were also negative in Enzygnost IgG and IgM ELISAs. One sample was negative in the IgG ELISA but indeterminate in the IgM ELISA.
Acute primary EBV infection. In eight cases, an acute primary EBV infection was diagnosed by IDIF. All eight cases were also correctly classified as acute primary infection by the Enzygnost assays.
Recent primary EBV infection.
The diagnosis of a recent
primary EBV infection was established by IDIF when low IgM anti-VCA
antibody titers (
1:20) were detectable in the presence of positive
IgG anti-VCA antibody titers and in the absence of anti-EBNA
antibodies. On this basis, recent primary EBV infection was diagnosed
in five children. All five samples were also correctly classified as
past EBV infection by the Enzygnost IgG-IgM ELISA interpretation
scheme; however, this scheme does not discriminate between the
categories recent primary EBV infection and past EBV infection.
Past EBV infection. Of the 66 children, 15 were EBV seropositive without serological signs of EBV reactivation in the IDIF. With the Enzygnost ELISAs (IgG and IgM), eight of these samples were also correctly interpreted as past EBV infection. In two samples the IgG antibody result was indeterminate while the IgM result was negative. The IgG and IgM antibody results were indeterminate in two samples, while the IgG result was positive and the IgM result was indeterminate in another two samples. In one final sample the IgG result was negative and the IgM result was indeterminate.
Reactivated EBV infection. Reactivated EBV infection was diagnosed when anti-EA (IDIF) was detectable at a titer of >1:40 either in the presence of anti-EBNA (ACIF) or if a positive IgG anti-VCA (IDIF) or IgG anti-EBV (ELISA) status was documented for more than 3 months in anti-EBNA negative cases. Of the 66 children, 27 showed serological signs of reactivated EBV infection by IDIF. Using the Enzygnost ELISA system, IgA anti-EBV values were determined only in cases with an IgG anti-EBV value of >650 IU/ml, because only this antibody constellation is indicative of EBV reactivation according to the manufacturer's evaluation. Only two of the children were correctly diagnosed by the Enzygnost system as having reactivated EBV infection, fulfilling the criteria of IgG level of >650 IU/ml and IgA OD of >0.6. In a further 17 samples the IgG anti-EBV value was positive below 650 IU/ml and the IgM anti-EBV value was negative. In three samples the IgG result was positive and the IgM result was indeterminate. In four further samples the IgG result was indeterminate and the IgM result was negative, and in one sample both the IgM and IgG results were positive
The IgG anti-EBV values are crucial to the diagnosis of reactivated EBV infection using the Enzygnost system. The ELISA IgG levels of the patient group with reactivated EBV infection according to IDIF and those of the group with past infection according to IDIF are compared in Fig. 1A. The IgG levels of the two groups do not differ significantly (Wilcoxon test; P = 0.18). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis shown in Fig. 1B demonstrates that an IgG anti-EBV cutoff point discriminating sufficiently between children with past EBV infection and children with reactivated EBV infection cannot be defined.
|
Relationship between age and Enzygnost IgG anti-EBV value.
The
IgG anti-EBV value determined by the Enzygnost ELISA depends on the age
of the children. The IgG anti-EBV levels (ELISA) of 55 IgG anti-VCA
(IDIF)-positive children were correlated with their ages. The related
scatter diagram in Fig. 2 demonstrates a
significant positive correlation between the two parameters (non
parametric Spearman's rank coefficient; P = 0.025).
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The Enzygnost EBV ELISA system for the diagnosis of EBV infection is an accurate system for the determination of virus-specific IgG and IgM antibodies (2, 3, 8, 15, 19) and has also been shown to detect reactivated EBV infection in non-age-defined populations (4). However, according to our findings, the application of these ELISAs in a pediatric population is characterized by a high rate of indeterminate test results (15 of 66 samples [22.7%]), which points to a relevant imperfection in test performance, because clear-cut interpretation and diagnosis are not possible for these patients.
With these samples excluded from further evaluation, the specificity and sensitivity of the Enzygnost system are excellent for the diagnosis of EBV seronegativity and acute primary infection. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of past EBV infection and the specificity for the detection of reactivated infection are also excellent.
The Enzygnost system allows sufficient differentiation between seronegativity, acute primary infection, and recent primary or past EBV infection. However, the Enzygnost system does not allow distinction between recent primary and past infection and is therefore not suitable for the retrospective diagnosis of acute EBV infection in the previous few weeks in patients suffering from prolonged symptoms. In contrast, the specificity for the diagnosis of recent or past infection is 52%, while the sensitivity for the detection of reactivated infection is only 10%. This inadequate performance with these two test characteristics is due to poor discrimination between past and reactivated EBV infections. According to the manufacturer, reactivated infection is defined by an IgG anti-EBV level of >650 IU/ml and an OD of >0.6 for IgA. These criteria were fulfilled in only 2 of the 27 samples with reactivated EBV infection according to IDIF.
The failure of the Enzygnost system to detect reactivated EBV infection in childhood may be due to a low IgG anti-EBV starting level in the very young and the slow age-dependent progression of IgG antibodies values against the utilized antigen mixture. A generally lower production of IgG against these antigens in reactivated EBV infection in childhood may be responsible for this effect. The EA component included in the Enzygnost ELISA may be of importance. Because reactivated EBV infections are usually characterized by IgG antibodies against EA-D (16), the D component of the EA but not the R component is included in the antigen mixture (18) besides the antigens EBNA-1 and VCA. In childhood, however, a predominant antibody production against EA-R has been described, which may be due to immaturity of the immune system (6).
The recalculation of the IgG cutoff value for the diagnosis of reactivated EBV infection with the Enzygnost system failed to provide adequate results because the IgG levels for past and reactivated EBV infections did not differ significantly.
The failure to detect reactivated EBV infection in childhood is of clinical importance in immunocompromised patients. However, even in otherwise healthy pediatric patients, reactivated EBV infection should not be ignored by a serological test system, because it is an important aspect of differential diagnosis in persisting and atypical illnesses (11, 14, 17).
We conclude that diagnosis with the Enzygnost ELISA system is suitable for the diagnosis of seronegativity and acute EBV infection. The applicability for the diagnosis of recent primary and past EBV infections is limited by the failure to distinguish between the two infection phases as well as by a high rate of indeterminate results.
The Enzygnost system is not applicable to the diagnosis of reactivated EBV infection. As ELISA systems are advantageous in regard to standardization and automation in the clinical virology laboratory, we suggest the additional detection of anti-EA by IDIF to overcome the problems in the detection of reactivated EBV infections using the Enzygnost ELISA system.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, D-52057 Aachen, Germany. Phone: 49 241 80 88773. Fax: 49 241 80 82484. E-mail: haeusler{at}rwth-aachen.de
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Andiman, W. A. 1979. The Epstein-Barr virus and EB virus infections in childhood. J. Pediatr. 95:171-182[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 2. |
Bruu, A.-L.,
R. Hjetland,
E. Holter,
L. Mortensen,
O. Natås,
W. Petterson,
A. G. Skar,
T. Skarpaas,
T. Tjade, and B. Åslø.
2000.
Evaluation of 12 commercial tests for the detection of Epstein-Barr virus-specific and heterophile antibodies.
Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol.
7:451-456 |
| 3. | Debyser, Z., M. Reynders, P. Goubau, and J. Desmyter. 1997. Comparative evaluation of three ELISA techniques and an indirect immunofluorescence assay for the serological diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infection. Clin. Diagn. Virol. 8:71-81[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. | Dopatka, H. D., and W. Schuy. 1996. Compact Epstein-Barr virus diagnosis based on a defined antigen mix and specific IgA. Res. Virol. 147:53-66[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 5. | Fleisher, G., E. T. Lennette, G. Henle, and W. Henle. 1979. Incidence of heterophile antibody responses in children with mononucleosis. J. Pediatr. 94:723-728[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 6. | Fleisher, G., W. Henle, G. Henle, E. T. Lennette, and R. J. Biggar. 1979. Primary infection with Epstein-Barr virus in infants in the United States: clinical and serologic observations. J. Infect. Dis. 139:553-558[Medline]. |
| 7. |
Ginsburg, C. M.,
W. Henle,
G. Henle, and C. A. Horwitz.
1977.
Infectious mononucleosis in children.
JAMA
237:781-785 |
| 8. |
Gutiérrez, J.,
M. C. Maroto, and G. Piédrola.
1994.
Evaluation of a new reagent for anti-Cytomegalovirus and anti-Epstein-Barr virus immunoglobulin G.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:2603-2605 |
| 9. | Gutiérrez, J., M. J. Vergara, G. Piédrola, and M. C. Maroto. 1999. Clinical reliability of IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies in detecting Epstein-Barr virus at different stages of infection with a commercial nonrecombinant polyantigenic ELISA. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 13:65-68[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 10. | Isenberg, H. D. 1998. Collection, transport, and manipulation of clinical specimens and initial laboratory concerns, p. 3-36. In H. D. Isenberg (ed.), Essential procedures for clinical microbiology American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 11. | Jones, J. F., C. G. Ray, L. L. Minnich, M. J. Hicks, R. Kibler, and D. O. Lucas. 1985. Evidence for active Epstein-Barr virus infection in patients with persistent, unexplained illnesses: elevated anti-early antigen antibodies. Ann. Intern. Med. 102:1-7. |
| 12. | Lennette, E. T. 1999. Epstein-Barr virus, p. 912-918. In P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 7th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 13. | Schuster, V., and H. W. Kreth. 1992. Epstein-Barr virus infections and associated diseases in children. Eur. J. Pediatr. 151:794-798[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 14. | Straus, S. E., G. Tosato, G. Armstrong, T. Lowley, O. T. Preble, W. Henle, R. Davey, G. Pearson, J. Epstein, I. Brus, and R. M. Blaese. 1985. Persisting illness and fatigue in adults with evidence of Epstein-Barr virus infection. Ann. Intern. Med. 102:7-16. |
| 15. | Svahn, A., M. Magnusson, L. Jägdahl, L. Schloss, G. Kahlmeter, and A. Linde. 1997. Evaluation of three commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and two latex agglutination assays for the diagnosis of primary Epstein-Barr virus infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:2728-2732[Abstract]. |
| 16. | Thiele, G. M., and M. Okano. 1993. Diagnosis of Epstein-Barr Virus infections in the clinical laboratory. Clin. Microbiol. News. 15:41-46[CrossRef]. |
| 17. | Tobi, M., A. Morag, Z. Ravid, I. Chowers, V. Feldman-Weiss, Y. Michaeli, E. Ben-Chetrit, M. Shalit, and H. Knobler. 1982. Prolonged atypical illness associated with serological evidence of persistent Epstein-Barr virus infection. Lancet i:61-64. |
| 18. | Wagner, H. J., M. Hornef, J. Feldner, and H. Kirchner. 1994. Determination of IgG- and IgM-antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus associated antigens in blood donors by a novel enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Lab. Med. 18:165-167. |
| 19. | Weber, B., M. Brunner, W. Preiser, and H. W. Doerr. 1996. Evaluation of 11 enzyme immunoassays for the detection of immunoglobulin M antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus. J. Virol. Methods 57:87-93[CrossRef][Medline]. |
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»