Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2001, p. 1877-1881, Vol. 39, No. 5
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1877-1881.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Monoclonal Antibody-Based Competitive Enzyme-Linked
Immunosorbent Assay for Detection of Morbillivirus Antibody in
Marine Mammal Sera
Jeremiah T.
Saliki1,2,* and
Terry W.
Lehenbauer2
Oklahoma Animal Disease Diagnostic
Laboratory1 and Department of Veterinary
Pathobiology,2 College of Veterinary Medicine,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078
Received 13 November 2000/Returned for modification 28 January
2001/Accepted 8 March 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
A competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA), using two
monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), was developed and compared with the
standard virus neutralization test (VNT) for detecting antibodies
against canine distemper virus (CDV) and phocine distemper virus (PDV)
in sera from dogs and various species of marine mammals. The test
depends on the blocking of MAb binding to solid-phase antigen in the
presence of positive serum. Test conditions were optimized by using
control VNT-negative and -positive sera specific for CDV and PDV. A
positive cutoff value of 30% inhibition, which represents the mean
cutoff of a VNT-negative population (n = 623) plus 2 standard deviations, was adopted for the test. A total of 736 serum
samples were tested by the new cELISA and by the VNT as the "gold
standard." An unexpected but useful finding was the ability of this
CDV- and PDV-specific cELISA to also detect antibodies against the
related pair dolphin morbillivirus and porpoise morbillivirus. Based on
a subpopulation of 625 sera used in statistical analyses, the overall
sensitivity and specificity of cELISA relative to those of the VNT were
94.9 and 97.7%, respectively. Because the cELISA proved to be nearly
as sensitive and specific as the VNT while being simpler and more
rapid, it would be an adequate screening test for suspect CDV or PDV
cases and would also be useful for epidemiological surveillance of
morbilliviral infections in marine mammal populations.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The last 13 years have witnessed the
emergence of newly recognized members of the Morbillivirus
genus as significant causes of disease and mortality in marine mammals
belonging in the Cetacea and Pinnipedia orders.
Four morbilliviruses are now known to infect various species of marine
mammals: canine distemper virus (CDV) in seals (10) and
polar bears (8, 9), phocine distemper virus (PDV) in seals
(18), dolphin morbillivirus (DMV) in dolphins and whales,
and porpoise morbillivirus (PMV) in porpoises (13).
In 1987 to 1988, more than half of the population of bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the Atlantic coast of the United States was estimated to have died during the first recognized marine morbilliviral epizootic (15). In 1987, CDV killed thousands of Siberian seals (Phoca sibirica) in
Lake Baikal, Russia (10, 26). The most devastating recent
morbilliviral mass mortality event occurred in 1988, when a PDV
epizootic killed approximately 17,000 harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina) in the North Sea (17, 18). Around the same
time, an outbreak of PMV killed small numbers of harbor porpoises
(Phocoena phocoena) in northwestern Europe (13,
27). Later, in 1990 to 1991, a DMV epizootic killed thousands of
striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) in the western Mediterranean (1, 2, 27). In 1993 to 1994, another DMV epizootic occurred in bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico (14). More recently, morbilliviral infection has been
reported in cetaceans in the Pacific (19) and an
apparently new member of the morbillivirus group in a long-finned pilot
whale (Globicephalus melas) of the U.S. Atlantic coast has
been described (23).
Because morbillivirus infections are now common in cetacean and
pinniped populations, serological testing of marine mammals is often
required prior to relocation or release into the wild following
poststranding rehabilitation. The microplate virus neutralization test
(VNT) has been extensively used for this purpose as well as for
epidemiological studies (4-9, 12, 20, 25, 27). The VNT is
both highly sensitive and highly specific; however, its use is limited
to laboratories that have the necessary cell culture facilities and the
appropriate live virus stocks. Furthermore, the VNT is expensive and
time-consuming because of the requirement for an incubation period of
at least 4 days. These limitations notwithstanding, the VNT has
remained the most reliable test for marine mammal morbilliviruses
because other commonly used serologic tests such as
fluorescent-antibody and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) require specific antispecies conjugates that are not currently
available. This study describes the development of a monoclonal
antibody (MAb)-based competitive ELISA (cELISA) for serologic testing
of sera from various species of marine mammals. The main advantage of
the cELISA over those of conventional serologic assays is that a single
anti-mouse immunoglobulin conjugate can be used on serum from any
animal species. Additional advantages include a shorter turnaround time
and lower expense.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Viruses.
The four morbilliviruses that are
established causes of disease in marine mammals were used. The viruses
included the Rockborn strain of CDV, PDV strain 1-2-6A, and the Belfast
strains of DMV and PMV. These viruses were used for preparation of
ELISA antigen and as indicator viruses in the VNT.
Serum samples.
A total of 736 serum samples, including
samples from various marine mammals belonging to five different orders
or families, were used in this study. These samples were received in
the diagnostic laboratory from various sources for morbillivirus
serological testing. The morbillivirus antibody status of each sample
was determined using the VNT, with the four viruses as indicators. Table 1 presents the animal origins and
VNT antibody statuses of the serum samples. Following the VNT, all
samples were frozen at
70°C until they were tested by cELISA.
Preparation of morbillivirus ELISA antigen.
Viruses were
grown in African green monkey kidney (Vero) cells using the alpha
modification of Eagle's minimum essential medium supplemented with
Earle's salts, L-glutamine, 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS),
and antibiotics (100 U of penicillin and 100 µg of streptomycin per
ml). The cells, seeded into 150-cm2 cell culture flasks,
were infected in suspension at a multiplicity of infection of about
0.01 50% tissue culture infective dose per cell and allowed to form
monolayers at 37°C in 5% CO2. When virus-specific cytopathic effects (CPE) were observed on 80% or more of the
monolayer, cells were scraped into the medium, sonicated, and clarified
by low-speed centrifugation and virus was concentrated from the
supernatant by centrifuging it at 125,000 × g for
1 h. Viral particles were then purified by gradient centrifugation
as previously described for other morbilliviruses (22).
Briefly, concentrated virus was layered onto a 20 to 60% step sucrose
gradient and centrifuged at 125,000 × g for 1 h at 4°C.
The virus band at the interface of the two sucrose layers was removed,
pelleted at 125,000 × g for 1 h at 4°C, and
layered onto a continuous 15 to 40% potassium tartrate gradient. After
being centrifuged for 4 h at 4°C, the virus band was collected,
diluted 1:15 in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and
centrifuged at 125,000 × g for 1 h. The resulting pellet was resuspended in sterile PBS by sonication and used as the
antigen for ELISA and for MAb production.
MAbs.
Gradient purified whole viral antigens of CDV, DMV,
PDV, and PMV antigens were submitted to the Hybridoma Center, Oklahoma State University, for MAb production on a contract basis. The resulting
four panels of MAbs were screened in our laboratory for their
reactivities against all four viruses by ELISA and VNT (see below).
Indirect ELISA was used to determine their specificities, while cELISA
was used to measure the ability of selected MAbs to compete with
specific antisera for binding to solid-phase-gradient-purified whole
viral antigen. Two CDV-induced MAbs, designated 1-1E12 and 2-5F8, were
selected for development of a diagnostic cELISA for CDV and PDV on the
basis of their strong indirect ELISA signals and their ability to
compete with specific anti-CDV and anti-PDV sera for binding to CDV
antigen. The MAb 1-1E12 was specific for CDV, while the MAb 2-5F8
reacted with both CDV and PDV by ELISA, but none of them neutralized
either virus. For simplicity and didactic reasons, these MAbs will be
referred to in the rest of this paper as MAb1 (1-1E12) and MAb2
(2-5F8).
VNT.
The morbilliviruses are antigenically so closely
related that they cross-neutralize one another. However, serum raised
against one morbillivirus will neutralize the homologous virus at a
higher titer than it will other (heterologous) morbilliviruses
(24). The VNT was therefore used in this study as the
"gold standard" to determine the antibody specificities of
diagnostic serum samples. The test was performed by following a
modification of the microtiter method (21). Briefly,
serial twofold dilutions of heat-inactivated sera were made in eight
columns of 96-well plates using Eagle's minimum essential medium,
starting at a 1:2 dilution. Equal volumes (25 µl) of the viruses
containing about 100 50% tissue culture infective doses were added to
duplicate columns. The virus-serum mixtures were incubated at 37°C
for 1 h in 5% CO2, and a Vero cell suspension (150 µl containing 104 cells/well) was added. The plates were
incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 4 days. The test was
read by examining cell monolayers under an inverted microscope for
virus-specific CPE. Antibody titers were expressed as the reciprocals
of the highest dilutions of sera that completely neutralized CPE in
duplicate wells. All samples with a titer of 8 or greater were
considered positive for morbillivirus antibody. For positive serum
samples, the homologous virus was considered to be the one against
which the serum had the highest titer (Table
2).
Indirect ELISA.
Indirect ELISA was used to determine MAb
reactivity against the four viruses. The test was performed using a
modification of established procedures (7) as previously
described for another morbillivirus (22). Volumes of 100 µl/well were used unless stated otherwise. Briefly, Immulon-2
flat-bottom 96-well plates (Dynex, Alexandria, Va.) were coated with
gradient-purified whole CDV at 100 µl/well containing 1 µg of total
protein per ml in carbonate-bicarbonate buffer (pH 9.6) and incubated
overnight at 4°C. This antigen concentration (1 or 0.1 µg/well) was
selected based on previous experience with another morbillivirus
(22). The following day, the plates were washed four times
with PBS containing 0.05% Tween 20 (PBST) and incubated for 1 h
at 37°C with MAb diluted in PBST containing 10% FBS (PBST-FBS). The
plates were washed again and incubated for 1 h at 37°C with
peroxidase-labeled anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (whole molecule) (Sigma
Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.) diluted 1:1,000 in PBST-FBS. Following
another wash step, the plates were reacted with a substrate-chromogen mixture consisting of 0.01% hydrogen peroxide and 0.1 mg of
3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine (Sigma Chemical Co.) per ml in 0.05 M
citrate-phosphate buffer (pH 5.0). After the plates were incubated at
room temperature for 20 min on a plate shaker, color development was
stopped by adding 25 µl of 2 M sulfuric acid per well. Optical
density (OD) readings were taken at a wavelength of 450 nm, using a
computer-interfaced ELISA plate reader.
cELISA.
The cELISA depends upon the ability of serum
antibody to compete with a MAb for binding to antigen. Competition is
detected as a reduction in the OD reading of serum-MAb wells when
compared to the OD of a control well with MAb alone. The
gradient-purified whole CDV antigen, against which the MAbs were
raised, was used as the cELISA antigen at the previously determined
concentration of 0.1 µg/well. Antigen-coated Immulon-2 96-well
flat-bottom plates (Dynex Laboratories) were incubated with 50 µl of
serum per well diluted in PBST for 30 min at 37°C. An equal volume
(50 µl/well) of MAb diluted in PBST was then added to plates without
their being washed. Controls consisting of three wells without MAb or serum and three wells with MAb alone were included on each plate. The
serum-MAb mixtures were allowed to react with the antigen for 1 h.
The rest of the procedure was carried out exactly as described for the
indirect ELISA above. The OD values were used to calculate the percent
inhibition induced by each serum, using the formula percent
inhibition = [1
(ODSer/ODMAb)] × 100, where ODSer is the mean OD of wells with serum and
MAb and ODMAb is the mean OD of wells with MAb alone. The
percent inhibition values from a VNT-negative population (n = 623) were used to establish a negative cutoff value by adding 2 standard deviations to the mean percent inhibition (Fig.
1).

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Establishment of a negative cutoff point for the MAb2
cELISA. (a) All VNT-negative sera (n = 623); (b) CDV- and
PDV-specific VNT-positive sera (n = 87). The dotted
line represents the cutoff point of 30% inhibition for distinguishing
between negative and positive samples.
|
|
Determination of optimal MAb and serum dilutions.
Three
serum samples (two positive samples and one negative sample) were
selected on the basis of their reactivities in the VNT for use in the
establishment of cELISA parameters. Those sera were as follows: one
polar bear sample with VN titers of 64, 12, 8, and 8 against CDV, PDV,
DMV, and PMV, respectively (positive serum 1); one harbor seal serum
sample with VN titers of 16, 64, 8, and 8 against the same viruses,
respectively (positive serum 2); and one seal serum sample with a VN
titer of <8 against all four viruses (negative serum). The cELISA
using MAb1 was optimized with positive serum 1, while the test using
MAb2 was optimized with positive serum 2; the same negative serum was
used for optimization of both assays. It has previously been determined
for another morbillivirus cELISA that serum dilutions of 1:10 to 1:20
compete well with MAb (22). Therefore, for establishment
of the optimal MAb dilution, the sera were tested at a fixed dilution
of 1:10 against serial twofold dilutions of MAbs (Fig.
2). Similarly, the optimal serum dilution
was determined by testing serial twofold dilutions of the sera against
the optimal MAb dilution (Fig. 3). The
cELISA percent inhibition values thus generated were plotted against
the MAb dilution (Fig. 2) or serum dilution (Fig. 3). The optimal
dilution for each reagent was determined to be the highest dilution
that yielded the maximum percent inhibition differential between
positive and negative sera.

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Determination of the optimal dilution of MAbs. Serial
twofold dilutions of each MAb were reacted with a 1:10 dilution of
negative and positive control sera in a cELISA. A MAb dilution of 1:500
was chosen.
|
|

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Determination of an optimal dilution of serum. Serial
twofold dilutions of negative and positive control sera were reacted
with the optimal MAb dilution (1:500) in a cELISA. To minimize the
volume of serum required, a serum dilution of 1:10 was chosen as the
preferred dilution over lower dilutions that performed only slightly
better.
|
|
Comparison of VNT and cELISA for titration of sera.
The 736 serum samples used in this study were tested for morbillivirus antibody
using the VNT and the two newly developed cELISAs. Results of both the
VNT and cELISA were expressed as positive or negative for each sample
to allow a qualitative comparison of the results (Table 2).
Statistical analysis.
Using the VNT as the gold standard,
the sensitivity and specificity and the exact binomial confidence
intervals for these estimated parameters were calculated for each
cELISA (11). Agreement between VNT and cELISA beyond
chance was estimated by calculating the agreement quotient (kappa)
(16). Calculations were performed using various
statistical and epidemiological softwares (SPSS for Windows, version
10.0.7 [SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.]; StatXact-4 [Cytel Software Corp.,
Cambridge, Mass.]; PEPI 3.01 [Screening and Diagnostic Tests, Unicorn
Software Development, Inc., Stone Mountain, Ga.]). A P
value of 0.05 was used to establish the level of significance for
statistical tests.
For evaluations of cELISA, sera that had positive but undetermined
antibody specificity for VNT (n = 8) were excluded.
Sera that had unknown family or species identification (n = 64) were also excluded. Other deletions included 36 sera from sea
otters (Mustelidae), which had no VNT or cELISA positive
results, and 3 sera that had unusual VNT-positive results that were not
considered to be representative of marine mammals (2 serum samples that
were positive for both DMV and PDV and 1 serum sample from a whale that
was positive for PDV). After these exclusions were made, 625 serum
samples from 109 Canidae, 117 Cetacea, and
399 Pinnipeda were used to evaluate cELISA performance
(Table 3).
 |
RESULTS |
Optimal dilutions of MAb and serum.
The main objective of this
study was to develop cELISAs that could detect and differentiate
between CDV and PDV antibodies in serum. The ability of MAbs to compete
with serum antibody depends not only on the specificities of their
binding to antigen but also on the relative amounts of these reagents
in the reaction mix. It was thus important to titrate both of these
critical reagents to determine the combination that yielded the best
discrimination between positive and negative control sera. The optimal
dilution of both MAbs was 1:500 (Fig. 2), while the preferred serum
dilution was 1:10 (Fig. 3). This dilution was chosen for serum over
apparently better-performing lower dilutions (Fig. 3) because marine
mammal serum is often a limiting factor with regard to quantity
received in the diagnostic laboratory.
Determination of the negative cutoff value.
The negative
cutoff value was arbitrarily set by adding 2 standard deviations to the
mean percent inhibition yielded by 623 sera determined to be negative
for morbillivirus antibody by VNT. Using these values (37 and 30%,
respectively, for MAb1 and -2), there was very good discrimination
between negative sera and a population of sera positive for CDV or PDV
(Fig. 1). The initial expectation was that sera positive for DMV or PMV
would not react in any of the cELISAs since none of the two MAbs
reacted specifically with either DMV or PMV. Surprisingly, however,
both cELISAs recognized over 60% of DMV- and PMV-positive sera (Table
2). Overall, the MAb1 and MAb2 cELISAs exceeded 92% sensitivity and
97% specificity. The high overall sensitivity and specificity
indicated that these cutoff values were valid.
Comparison of the cELISA and VNT.
The criterion for
designation of a homologous virus was set such that a serum sample had
to yield a titer of antibody to a single virus at least twofold higher
than the titers induced by the other morbilliviruses before that virus
would be determined to have induced the antibody in the serum. Based on
this criterion, of the 118 sera that had a positive antibody titer, the
homologous virus could be determined in 48% (57 of 118). Of the
remainder, 28% (33 of 118) were CDV or PDV positive, 5% (6 of 118)
were DMV or PDV positive, 0.85% (1 of 118) were DMV or PDV positive,
and 6.8% (8 of 118) were of undetermined antibody status (Table 2). In
recognition of this apparent failing of the gold standard to be more
definitive, all data analyses of positive samples used the CDV-PDV and
DMV-PMV pairs rather than the individual viruses.
Overall, the MAb1 cELISA was slightly less sensitive than the MAb2
cELISA (92.8 versus 94.9%), although this difference was not
statistically significant. When used on CDV-PDV or DMV-PMV sera, the
MAb2 cELISA was more sensitive than the MAb1 cELISA (98.8 or 69.2%
versus 97.6 or 61.5%). However, the MAb1 cELISA was only slightly more
specific than the MAb2 assay (97.9 versus 97.7%). None of these
differences, however, between the MAb1 and MAb2 cELISAs was
statistically significant. All of the values for kappa showed high
agreement beyond chance (0.57 to 0.96) between VNT and corresponding
cELISA results (P < 0.01). These results provided
evidence that the cELISAs were valid tests.
Evaluation of the cELISAs according to animal groups produced expected
results. The greatest sensitivity (100%) occurred with sera from the
Canidae family. Samples from Pinnipeda provided the greatest specificity (99%). These two families involved the combination of CDV-PDV pairs from VNT. Both the sensitivity and specificity for these two families combined exceeded 98%. The results
previously stated for the DMV-PVM pairs were entirely from
Cetacea. The sensitivity was significantly lower for sera from this family (69.2% for MAb2) than for samples from
Canidae or Pinnipeda based on an evaluation of
95% confidence intervals. The specificity (95.2% for both MAb1 and
MAb2) was intermediate between the corresponding specificities for
Canidae (91.4% for MAb2) and Pinnipeda (99.0%
for both Mab1 and Mab2). All of the 95% confidence intervals for
specificity overlapped among the different animal group or virus pair
comparisons, which indicated no significant difference among these
specificity estimates.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Morbillivirus infections currently occur in marine mammals
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the Mediterranean, Caspean, and
North seas (23). Serology is a major epidemiological tool used to detect the occurrence of morbillivirus infections in marine mammal populations where clinical disease has not been observed. For
example, serological evidence indicates that morbillivirus infections
occur in polar bears, although clinical morbillivirus disease has not
yet been described (8, 9). The availability of a simple,
fast, reliable, and inexpensive test would provide a tool that can be
readily used by various laboratories for diagnostic and epidemiological
purposes. The cELISA described herein fits that role.
The initial goal of this study was to develop two cELISAs that could
detect and differentiate between antibodies induced by CDV and PDV.
This was a reasonable expectation because MAb1 was CDV specific while
MAb2 reacted with CDV and PDV; both MAbs did not react with DMV and PMV
by indirect ELISA. It was therefore surprising to observe that MAb1
competed against PDV-specific sera and that both MAbs competed against
DMV- and PMV-specific sera for binding to solid-phase CDV antigen. A
possible explanation for this cross-reactivity is that steric hindrance
caused by cross-reactive serum antibody binding to epitopes close to
the specific epitope recognized by the MAbs prevented them from
binding. Although this outcome was not expected at the beginning, it
was useful because a single MAb-based cELISA could be used to detect
antibody against the four morbilliviruses.
Comparison of each cELISA with VNT for detection of CDV-PDV antibody
yielded relative sensitivities and specificities of 97.6% or greater.
It was observed that sample quality had an adverse effect on test
results (data not shown). For example, 11 of the 13 samples that
yielded false-positive results on MAb2 cELISA were of very poor
quality: they were cloudy (indicating apparent microbial
contamination), hemolyzed, or rich in fat. The relative sensitivity of
the MAb2 cELISA for detection of DMV-PMV antibody was 69.2%. While
this is a relatively low value, it is nevertheless significant for a
test based on nonspecific cross-reactive binding. The MAb2 cELISA is
thus be useful for quick screening of sera for all morbilliviruses. If
CDV and PDV are suspect viruses, testing could end with the cELISA. If
DMV or PMV is suspected under low-prevalence situations (<20%), the
cELISA would still provide a negative predictive value of
93% as a
screening test. The VNT could be performed on the positive sera if
improvement in positive predictive value was needed, especially for
lower-prevalence situations or in order to confirm diagnosis related to
DMV or PMV.
The data from this study have confirmed previous observations by us
(unpublished) and others (8) that the VNT is not always able to differentiate among antibodies from the various
morbilliviruses, especially the closely related CDV-PDV and DMV-PMV
pairs. From the diagnostic standpoint, we propose to use the
designations pinniped virus and cetacean virus to encompass the CDV-PDV
and DMV-PMV pairs, respectively. For epidemiology purposes, serology might still be used to identify the exact virus involved in a given
population if mean population antibody titers against the four viruses
are compared (8). In that case, the virus that yields the
highest mean titer from the population of samples tested would be
considered the homologous virus.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This work was supported by a grant from the Morris Animal
Foundation (98Z0-29).
The laboratory help of Shannon Caseltine, Julie Erbeck, and Wendy Clark
is gratefully acknowledged.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Oklahoma Animal
Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Farm Road and Ridge, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078. Phone: (405) 744-6623. Fax: (405)
744-8612. E-mail: jsaliki{at}okstate.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Domingo, M. L.,
L. Ferrer,
M. Pumarola,
M. A. Plana,
J. Kennedy,
S. McAlisky, and B. K. Rima.
1990.
Morbillivirus in dolphins.
Nature
336:21.
|
| 2.
|
Domingo, M. L.,
M. Vilafranca,
J. Visa,
N. Prats,
A. L. Trudgett, and I. Visser.
1995.
Evidence of chronic morbillivirus infection in the Mediterranean striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Vet. Microbiol.
44:229-239[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Duignan, P. J.,
O. Nielsen,
C. House,
K. M. Kovacs,
N. Duffy,
G. Early,
S. Sadove,
D. J. St. Aubin,
B. K. Rima, and J. R. Geraci.
1997.
Epizootiology of morbillivirus infection in harp, hooded, and ringed seals from the Canadian Arctic and Western Atlantic.
J. Wildl. Dis.
33:7-19[Abstract].
|
| 4.
|
Duignan, P. J.,
S. Sadove,
J. T. Saliki, and J. R. Geraci.
1993.
Phocine distemper in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from Long Island, New York.
J. Wildl. Dis.
29:465-469[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
Duignan, P. J.,
J. T. Saliki,
D. J. St. Aubin,
J. A. House, and J. R. Geraci.
1994.
Neutralizing antibodies to phocine distemper virus in Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) from Arctic Canada.
J. Wildl. Dis.
30:90-94[Abstract].
|
| 6.
|
Duignan, P. J.,
J. T. Saliki,
D. J. St. Aubin,
G. Early,
S. Sadove,
J. A. House,
K. Kovacs, and J. R. Geraci.
1995.
Epizootiology of morbillivirus infection in North American harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and gray seals (Halichoerus grypus).
J. Wildl. Dis.
31:491-501[Abstract].
|
| 7.
|
Engvall, E., and P. Perlmann.
1972.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA-III. Quantitation of specific antibodies by enzyme-labeled antiimmunoglobulin in antigen-coated tubes.
J. Immunol.
109:129-135[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Follmann, E. H.,
G. W. Garner,
J. F. Evermann, and A. J. McKeirman.
1996.
Serological evidence of morbillivirus infection in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska and Russia.
Vet. Rec.
138:615-618[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Garner, G. W.,
J. F. Evermann,
J. T. Saliki,
E. H. Follmann, and A. J. McKeirnan.
2000.
Morbillivirus ecology in polar bears (Ursus maritimus).
Polar Biol.
23:474-478[CrossRef].
|
| 10.
|
Grachev, M. A.,
V. P. Kumarev,
L. V. Mamaev,
L. Zorin,
L. V. Baranova,
N. N. Denekina,
S. I. Belikova,
E. A. Petrov,
V. S. Kolesnik,
V. N. Dorofeev,
A. M. Beim,
V. N. Kudelin,
F. G. Nagieva, and V. N. Sidorov.
1989.
Distemper virus in Baikal seals.
Nature
338:209[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Greiner, M., and I. A. Gardner.
2000.
Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests.
Prev. Vet. Med.
45:3-22[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Henderson, G. A.,
C. Trudgett,
C. Lyons, and K. Ronald.
1992.
Demonstration of antibodies in archival sera from Canadian seals reactive with a European isolate of phocine distemper virus.
Sci. Total Environ.
115:93-98[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Kennedy, S.,
J. A. Smyth,
P. F. Cush,
M. McAliskey,
D. Moffett,
C. M. McNiven, and M. Carole.
1992.
Morbillivirus infection in two common porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the coasts of England and Scotland.
Vet. Rec.
131:286-290[Abstract].
|
| 14.
|
Lipscomb, T. P.,
S. Kennedy,
D. Moffett,
A. Kraft,
B. A. Klaunberg,
J. H. Lichy,
G. T. Regan,
G. A. J. Worthy, and J. K. Taubenberger.
1996.
Morbilliviral epizootic in bottlenose dolphins of the Gulf of Mexico.
J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.
8:283-290[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Lipscomb, T. P.,
F. Y. Schulman,
D. Moffett, and S. Kennedy.
1994.
Morbilliviral disease in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the 1987-88 epizootic.
J. Wildl. Dis.
30:567-571[Abstract].
|
| 16.
|
Martin, S. W.,
A. H. Meek, and P. Willeberg.
1988.
Veterinary epidemiology, p. 73-75.
Iowa State University Press, Ames.
|
| 17.
|
Osterhaus, A. D. M. E.,
E. J. Groen,
H. E. M. Spijkers,
H. W. J. Broeders,
F. G. C. M. UytdeHaag,
P. De Vries,
J. S. Teppema,
I. K. G. Visser,
M. W. G. van de Bildt, and E. J. Vedder.
1990.
Mass mortality in seals caused by a newly discovered morbillivirus.
Vet. Microbiol.
23:343-350[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Osterhaus, A. D. M. E., and E. J. Vedder.
1988.
Identification of a virus causing recent seal deaths.
Nature
335:20[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Reidarson, T. H.,
J. McBain,
C. House,
D. P. King,
J. L. Stott,
A. Kraft,
J. K. Taubenberger,
J. Heyning, and T. P. Lipscomb.
1998.
Morbillivirus infection in stranded common dolphins from the Pacific Ocean.
J. Wildl. Dis.
34:771-776[Abstract].
|
| 20.
|
Ross, P. S.,
I. K. G. Visser,
H. W. Broeders,
W. G. van De Bilt,
W. D. Bowen, and A. D. M. E. Osterhaus.
1992.
Antibodies to phocine distemper virus in Canadian seals.
Vet. Rec.
130:514-516[Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Rossiter, P. B.,
D. M. Jessett, and W. P. Taylor.
1985.
Microneutralisation systems for use with different strains of peste des petits ruminants virus and rinderpest virus.
Trop. Anim. Health Prod.
17:75-81[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Saliki, J. T.,
G. Libeau,
J. A. House,
C. A. Mebus, and E. J. Dubovi.
1993.
Monoclonal antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for specific detection and titration of peste-des-petits-ruminants virus antibody in caprine and ovine sera.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:1075-1082[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 23.
|
Taubenberger, J. K.,
M. M. Tsai,
T. J. Atkin,
T. G. Fanning,
A. E. Kraft,
R. B. Moeller,
S. E. Kodsi,
M. G. Mense, and T. P. Lipscomb.
2000.
Molecular genetic evidence of a novel morbillivirus in a long-finned pilot whale (Globicephalus melas).
Emerg. Infect. Dis.
6:42-45[Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Taylor, W. P.
1979.
Serological studies with the virus of peste des petits ruminants in Nigeria.
Res. Vet. Sci.
26:236-242[Medline].
|
| 25.
|
Van Bressem, M. F.,
K. Van Waerebeek,
M. Fleming, and T. Barrett.
1998.
Serological evidence of morbillivirus infection in small cetaceans from the southeast Pacific.
Vet. Microbiol.
59:89-98[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Visser, I. K. G.,
V. P. Kumarev,
C. Orvell,
P. de Vries,
H. W. J. Broeders,
M. W. G. van de Bildt,
J. Groen,
J. S. Teppema,
M. C. Burger,
F. G. C. M. UytdeHaag, and A. D. M. E. Osterhaus.
1990.
Comparison of two morbilliviruses isolated from seals during outbreaks of distemper in North West Europe and Siberia.
Arch. Virol.
111:149-164[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 27.
|
Visser, I. K. G.,
M. F. Van Bressem,
R. L. de Swart,
M. W. G. van de Bildt,
H. W. Vos,
R. W. J. van der Heijden,
J. T. Saliki,
C. Orvell,
P. Kitching,
T. Kuiken,
T. Barrett, and A. D. M. E. Osterhaus.
1993.
Characterization of morbilliviruses isolated from dolphins and porpoises in Europe.
J. Gen. Virol.
74:631-641[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2001, p. 1877-1881, Vol. 39, No. 5
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.5.1877-1881.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.