Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Virology

Sensitivity and Kinetics of an NS1-Based Zika Virus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Zika Virus-Infected Travelers from Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Chile

Yaniv Lustig, Hana Zelena, Giulietta Venturi, Marjan Van Esbroeck, Camilla Rothe, Cecilia Perret, Ravit Koren, Shiri Katz-Likvornik, Ella Mendelson, Eli Schwartz
Alexander J. McAdam, Editor
Yaniv Lustig
aCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hana Zelena
bInstitute of Public Health, Ostrava, Czech Republic
cUniversity of Defence, Faculty of Military Health Sciences, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giulietta Venturi
dIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marjan Van Esbroeck
eDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Camilla Rothe
fUniversity Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecilia Perret
gLaboratory of Virology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ravit Koren
aCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shiri Katz-Likvornik
aCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ella Mendelson
aCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Ramat-Gan, Israel
hSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eli Schwartz
hSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
iInstitute of Tropical & Travel Medicine, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. McAdam
Boston Children's Hospital
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00346-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Serological diagnosis of Zika virus is challenging due to high cross-reactivity of Zika virus with other flavivirus antibodies. Recently, a Zika NS1-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed and shown to be highly specific for Zika antibody detection; however, sensitivity was evaluated for only a small number of confirmed Zika-infected patients. In this study, we measured the sensitivity and kinetics of Zika IgM and IgG antibodies using the Zika NS1-based ELISA in 105 samples from 63 returning travelers infected with Zika virus (proven by PCR or neutralization assay) from Israel, Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Chile. Zika virus IgM was detected from 2 to 42 days post-symptom onset (PSO) with an overall sensitivity of 79% in the first month and 68% until 2 months PSO, while IgG antibodies were detected from 5 days to 3 years PSO with 79% sensitivity. Interestingly, significant differences in IgM sensitivity and IgM detection period were observed between Israeli and European/Chilean Zika-infected travelers, adding to the complexity of Zika infection diagnosis and suggesting that other diagnostic methods should be complemented to reduce false-negative results.

INTRODUCTION

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a Mosquito-borne flavivirus that has spread in the last year to >50 countries and territories throughout the Americas (1). Laboratory diagnosis of ZIKV infection is based on detection of Zika RNA in body fluids, such as serum, urine, saliva, and whole blood, or detection of IgM and IgG antibodies against ZIKV in serum. However, Zika diagnosis is challenging due to high cross-reactivity of Zika with other flavivirus antibodies and the limited time that ZIKV RNA is detected in body fluids (2–5).

ZIKV has a single positive-sense RNA genome that is translated into 3 structural (C, PrM, and E) and 7 nonstructural (NS1, NS2A, NS2B, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, and NS5) proteins. Nonstructural protein 1 (NS1) forms a homodimer inside the cells and is necessary for viral replication and late infection. NS1 is also secreted by infected cells into the bloodstream, interacting with and stimulating components of the immune system to produce NS1 antibodies (6).

Recently, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on the detection of antibodies against ZIKV NS1 antigen has been developed and shown to be a highly specific tool for the serodiagnosis of ZIKV infections, eliminating cross-reactions with antibodies to dengue virus (DENV) and other flaviviruses (7). In this study, we investigated the sensitivity of detection and the kinetics of Zika IgM and IgG antibodies in Zika-infected returning travelers, evaluating them with Zika NS1-based ELISA.

RESULTS

In order to examine the sensitivity of the Zika NS1-based ELISA, we obtained 105 samples from 63 ZIKV-infected travelers returning from areas where ZIKV is endemic. Thirty-three samples were obtained from residents of Israel, 38 from the Czech Republic, 13 from central Italy, 9 from Belgium, 6 from Chile, and 6 from Germany. Diagnosis of all Zika patients was performed in their resident country either by detection of ZIKV RNA in whole blood, urine, semen, or serum samples (18 patients) (4), by neutralization assay (26 patients), or by both Zika RNA detection and neutralization (19 patients) (Table 1). Some of the positive PCR patients were also sequenced (8). All samples from Zika-positive patients were subjected to Zika NS1-based ELISA in the patient's resident country.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Results of Zika NS1-based ELISA from 63 travelers with neutralization or RT-PCR positive Zika virus infection

Table 1 summarizes Zika NS1 ELISA IgM and IgG antibody data obtained from all patients. Our results (Table 1 and Fig. 1A) demonstrate that IgM antibodies can be detected from as early as 2 days until 42 days from the onset of symptoms while IgG antibodies are first detected at day 5 and can still be present 3 years post-symptom onset (PSO), although this was observed for only 1 patient (Fig. 1A). Overall, IgM sensitivity during the first month (from day 2 to 26 days PSO) and until 61 days PSO was found to be 79% and 68%, respectively, while IgG sensitivity starting from day 8 post-symptom onset was 79% (Fig. 1B). The combined sensitivity of IgM and IgG was 81% from day 1 and 88% from day 5 PSO.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Overall performance of Zika NS1-based ELISA. A total of 105 samples from ZIKV-infected travelers returning from areas where ZIKV is endemic were tested with IgM and IgG Zika NS1-based ELISA. Number of samples for each day post-symptom onset (A) and percentage of samples obtained 1 to 7, 8 to 26, 27 to 61, and >61 days post-symptom onset (B) are presented. Negative (Neg), positive (Pos), and equivocal IgM and IgG antibodies are indicated.

Interestingly, a marked difference was observed in the IgM sensitivities of Israeli and European/Chilean travelers (Fig. 2). In the first month (until 26 days PSO), the sensitivity of IgM antibodies was 83% in European/Chilean travelers, which was not significantly higher than the 72% sensitivity observed for Israeli travelers. However, a significant difference was observed between Israeli and European/Chilean travelers in the first 61 days PSO with sensitivities of 81% and 52%, respectively (Fig. 2B). The IgG sensitivity of samples obtained more than 7 days PSO was 85% in European/Chilean travelers, which is not significantly different from the 68% sensitivity observed for Israeli travelers. In both groups, the highest detection rate was observed between 8 and 26 days PSO for IgM and 27 and 61 days PSO for IgG (Fig. 2). It is important to note that several samples from Zika-infected Israeli travelers that were tested in 3 different laboratories yielded similar results, reducing the possibility for technical variation factor between labs. Comparable results and differential sensitivities between the 2 groups of travelers were also observed when taking into account only samples from Zika real-time PCR (RT-PCR)-positive patients (without including samples from patients detected by neutralization assay).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Differential sensitivity of IgM antibodies in Zika NS1-based ELISA. Samples obtained from travelers from Israel and European/Chilean countries with neutralization or RT-PCR-positive ZIKV infection were subjected to IgM and IgG Zika NS1-based ELISA. (A) Percent of negative (Neg), positive (Pos), and equivocal IgM and IgG antibody results from samples obtained 1 to 7, 8 to 26, 27 to 61, and >61 days post-symptom onset are presented. Number of samples in each time frame is indicated. (B) IgM detection rate of samples obtained from Zika-Infected patients; 1 to 26 and 1 to 61 days post-symptom onset in European/Chilean and Israeli travelers are presented. **, P value of <0.05.

DISCUSSION

Accumulating evidence suggests that ZIKV infection during pregnancy is a cause of congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly (9). Recently, congenital ZIKV infection without microcephaly at birth has been reported (10) as has postnatal development of microcephaly in infants presumed to be infected congenitally (11). Consequently, follow-up ultrasound examinations may not detect all Zika infection abnormalities, and other highly specific and sensitive diagnostic methods for Zika infection must be implemented. Since ZIKV RNA, like that of other flaviviruses, can be detected for only a short time post-symptom onset (although we have shown that in rare cases Zika RNA in whole blood can still be detected 2 months after onset of symptoms [4]), a negative PCR result should be followed by serological testing.

The serological tests that are currently available for Zika diagnosis are designed to detect IgM and IgG antibodies for either the envelope or the NS1 proteins. The envelope-based tests are sensitive but lack specificity due to high cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses, primarily dengue (3), and therefore are considered nonspecific and require confirmation with neutralization assay, which is time-consuming and unavailable in many laboratories (12). The new method of NS1-based ELISA was demonstrated to be highly specific with almost no cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses (7). Additionally, in a recent publication, high IgM (100%) and lower IgG (60%) sensitivities were observed in RT-PCR-confirmed ZIKV-infected travelers returning from areas where ZIKV is endemic (13); however, these data were collected from only 8 samples, and antibody kinetics were not shown. Here, we examined the performance of IgM and IgG antibody detection by the NS1 ELISA for 105 samples obtained from 63 travelers returning from countries where Zika is endemic. Our results point to 79% sensitivity of IgM in the first 26 days PSO, suggesting that false-negative results in IgM detection may occur. Similarly, 79% sensitivity was observed for IgG testing starting from day 8 PSO.

A major advantage of our study was the availability of several follow-up samples from many of the Zika-infected patients and the high number of samples tested (105), which allowed us to assess the overall duration of detectable IgM and IgG antibodies against NS1. The detection time frame of IgM antibodies suggests that NS1 IgM testing is useful only in the first month after symptom onset, whereas IgG antibodies should be tested at least 8 days PSO in order to allow maximum sensitivity.

Of particular interest is the significant difference in IgM sensitivity of the Zika NS1-based ELISA observed in this study between Israeli and European/Chilean travelers. Recently, only 41.7% anti-NS1 IgM sensitivity was detected in RT-PCR-confirmed ZIKV infection among residents of areas where ZIKV is endemic (13). In Israel, a 41% prevalence of West Nile virus (WNV) antibodies has been observed in adults (14), and therefore, many Israeli travelers may have WNV background immunity. Due to cross-reactivity with ZIKV, we could not test the actual WNV immunity in this cohort. Based on these data, it is not farfetched to speculate that ZIKV infection in Israeli travelers may generate lower levels of IgM antibodies compared to European/Chilean travelers and as a result IgM antibodies are lower than the threshold of the NS1-based ELISA in samples from Israeli travelers, particularly when starting to decline. This may be the reason for the difference in sensitivities observed specifically between 1 and 2 months after symptom onset. Conversely, the high flavivirus background present in several European countries, such as the 26.3% seroprevalence of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in several areas of the Czech Republic (15), indicates that other factors may impact the differential NS1 antibody sensitivity observed between Israeli and European/Chilean travelers. Future studies should investigate the performance of NS1-based Zika serology kits for Zika-infected patients with known flavivirus history to assess the effect of different flavivirus backgrounds on Zika diagnosis.

The limited sensitivity of the NS1 IgM and IgG tests measured in our study suggests that some of the Zika-infected patients may be undetected using this assay alone. Combined testing of both IgM and IgG antibodies for all samples obtained from Zika-suspected patients more than 5 days PSO has an 88% detection rate and, therefore, should be recommended. However, since analysis of Zika RNA in both urine (2) and whole blood (4) has been shown to be effective in the first weeks after symptom onset, our results confirm that both molecular and ELISA NS1 serological tests should be performed in acute (up to 2 months) ZIKV-suspected patients.

From the beginning of the outbreak, Zika turned out to be an elusive virus and a complicated algorithm is required for optimal diagnosis of infection. Despite its high specificity (6, 11), the study performed here underscores the limitations of the current Zika NS1-based ELISA. Therefore, other serological diagnosis tests that would increase the sensitivity of Zika antibody detection should be developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Zika patients and samples.A total of 105 samples from 63 ZIKV-infected travelers returning from areas where ZIKV is endemic were tested with ZIKV NS1-based ELISA. The median age of the 29 female patients was 32 and overall age ranged between 17 and 66, while the 34 male patients had a median age of 35 and ranged between 4 and 74. Symptoms were mostly comprised of rash, fever, and arthralgia or myalgia. PSO is defined as the number of days since the start of symptoms. None of the patients were pregnant. All samples arrived to the lab at 4°C, were tested for Zika serology, and were consequently stored at −20°C or −80°C.

All patient samples were tested for ZIKV infection with RT-PCR, NS1-based ELISA, and neutralization assay in their country of origin as depicted in Table 1. Patients were tested at the Central Virology Laboratory in Israel; at the Institute of Public Health in Ostrava, Czech Republic; at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome, Italy; at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium; at the University Medical Centre in Hamburg, Germany; and at the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile in Chile.

Zika RT-PCR.Zika RNA in samples obtained from Israeli travelers was detected as previously described (4). In Italy, Zika RNA was detected as published in reference 3, in Belgium as published in reference 16, and in the Czech Republic by the RealStar ZIKV RT-PCR kit (Altona diagnostics GMBH, Hamburg, Germany).

Zika neutralization assay.For neutralization, samples tested in Israel were subjected to microneutralization assay (17) with 100 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID50) Zika MR-677. Samples from the Czech Republic were tested by virus neutralization assay in micromodification (18) with 100 TCID50 Zika MR-677. Samples from Belgium were tested with a virus neutralization (VNT) using Vero cells and 90% neutralizing titer (NT90) (16), while plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) was performed for samples from Italy (15).

ZIKV NS1-based ELISA.Zika-positive patients were subjected to Euroimmun ZIKV ELISA (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In brief, serum samples were diluted 1:101 in sample buffer and incubated at 37°C for 60 min. Before IgM detection, serum samples were preincubated with sample buffer containing rheumatoid factor absorbent as recommended. After several incubation and washing steps, the optical density (OD) was measured in a Tecan Sunrise system (Austria, GMBH). A signal-to-cutoff ratio was calculated, and values of <0.8 were regarded as negative, values of ≥0.8 to <1.1 were regarded as borderline, and value of ≥1.1 were regarded as positive.

Statistical analysis.Fisher's exact test was used to compare results of Israeli and European/Chilean travelers. Statistical significance was defined as a P value of <0.05 as indicated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We declare no conflicts of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 27 February 2017.
    • Returned for modification 17 March 2017.
    • Accepted 30 March 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 5 April 2017.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Fauci AS,
    2. Morens DM
    . 2016. Zika virus in the Americas–yet another arbovirus threat. N Engl J Med374:601–604. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1600297.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gourinat AC,
    2. O'Connor O,
    3. Calvez E,
    4. Goarant C,
    5. Dupont-Rouzeyrol M
    . 2015. Detection of Zika virus in urine. Emerg Infect Dis21:84–86. doi:10.3201/eid2101.140894.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lanciotti RS,
    2. Kosoy OL,
    3. Laven JJ,
    4. Velez JO,
    5. Lambert AJ,
    6. Johnson AJ,
    7. Stanfield SM,
    8. Duffy MR
    . 2008. Genetic and serologic properties of Zika virus associated with an epidemic, Yap State, Micronesia, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis14:1232–1239. doi:10.3201/eid1408.080287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lustig Y,
    2. Mendelson E,
    3. Paran N,
    4. Melamed S,
    5. Schwartz E
    . 2016. Detection of Zika virus RNA in whole blood of imported Zika virus disease cases up to 2 months after symptom onset, Israel, December 2015 to April 2016. Euro Surveill21(26):pii=30269. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=22515 .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Musso D,
    2. Roche C,
    3. Nhan TX,
    4. Robin E,
    5. Teissier A,
    6. Cao-Lormeau VM
    . 2015. Detection of Zika virus in saliva. J Clin Virol68:53–55. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2015.04.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Rastogi M,
    2. Sharma N,
    3. Singh SK
    . 2016. Flavivirus NS1: a multifaceted enigmatic viral protein. Virol J13:131. doi:10.1186/s12985-016-0590-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Huzly D,
    2. Hanselmann I,
    3. Schmidt-Chanasit J,
    4. Panning M
    . 2016. High specificity of a novel Zika virus ELISA in European patients after exposure to different flaviviruses. Euro Surveill21(16):pii=30203. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=21450 .
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Meltzer E,
    2. Lustig Y,
    3. Leshem E,
    4. Levy R,
    5. Gottesman G,
    6. Weissmann R,
    7. Rabi DH,
    8. Hindiyeh M,
    9. Koren R,
    10. Mendelson E,
    11. Schwartz E
    . 2016. Zika virus disease in traveler returning from Vietnam to Israel. Emerg Infect Dis22:1521–1522. doi:10.3201/eid2208.160480.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Johansson MA,
    2. Mier-y-Teran-Romero L,
    3. Reefhuis J,
    4. Gilboa SM,
    5. Hills SL
    . 2016. Zika and the risk of microcephaly. N Engl J Med375:1–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1605367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Franca GV,
    2. Schuler-Faccini L,
    3. Oliveira WK,
    4. Henriques CM,
    5. Carmo EH,
    6. Pedi VD,
    7. Nunes ML,
    8. Castro MC,
    9. Serruya S,
    10. Silveira MF,
    11. Barros FC,
    12. Victora CG
    . 2016. Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation. Lancet388:891–897. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30902-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Moura da Silva AA,
    2. Ganz JS,
    3. Sousa PD,
    4. Doriqui MJ,
    5. Ribeiro MR,
    6. Branco MD,
    7. Queiroz RC,
    8. Pacheco MJ,
    9. Vieira da Costa FR,
    10. Silva FS,
    11. Simoes VM,
    12. Pacheco MA,
    13. Lamy-Filho F,
    14. Lamy ZC,
    15. Soares de Britto EAMT
    . 2016. Early growth and neurologic outcomes of infants with probable congenital Zika virus syndrome. Emerg Infect Dis22:1953–1956. doi:10.3201/eid2211.160956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Landry ML,
    2. St George K
    . 2017. Laboratory diagnosis of Zika virus infection. Arch Pathol Lab Med141:60–67. doi:10.5858/arpa.2016-0406-SA.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Steinhagen K,
    2. Probst C,
    3. Radzimski C,
    4. Schmidt-Chanasit J,
    5. Emmerich P,
    6. van Esbroeck M,
    7. Schinkel J,
    8. Grobusch MP,
    9. Goorhuis A,
    10. Warnecke JM,
    11. Lattwein E,
    12. Komorowski L,
    13. Deerberg A,
    14. Saschenbrecker S,
    15. Stocker W,
    16. Schlumberger W
    . 2016. Serodiagnosis of Zika virus (ZIKV) infections by a novel NS1-based ELISA devoid of cross-reactivity with dengue virus antibodies: a multicohort study of assay performance, 2015 to 2016. Euro Surveill21(50):pii=30426. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=22670 .
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cohen D,
    2. Zaide Y,
    3. Karasenty E,
    4. Schwarz M,
    5. LeDuc JW,
    6. Slepon R,
    7. Ksiazek TG,
    8. Shemer J,
    9. Green MS
    . 1999. Prevalence of antibodies to West Nile fever, sandfly fever Sicilian, and sandfly fever Naples viruses in healthy adults in Israel. Public Health Rev27:217–230.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Venturi G,
    2. Zammarchi L,
    3. Fortuna C,
    4. Remoli ME,
    5. Benedetti E,
    6. Fiorentini C,
    7. Trotta M,
    8. Rizzo C,
    9. Mantella A,
    10. Rezza G,
    11. Bartoloni A
    . 2016. An autochthonous case of Zika due to possible sexual transmission, Florence, Italy, 2014. Euro Surveill21(8):pii=30148. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=21395 .
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. De Smet B,
    2. Van den Bossche D,
    3. van de Werve C,
    4. Mairesse J,
    5. Schmidt-Chanasit J,
    6. Michiels J,
    7. Arien KK,
    8. Van Esbroeck M,
    9. Cnops L
    . 2016. Confirmed Zika virus infection in a Belgian traveler returning from Guatemala, and the diagnostic challenges of imported cases into Europe. J Clin Virol80:8–11. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2016.04.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lustig Y,
    2. Mannasse B,
    3. Koren R,
    4. Katz-Likvornik S,
    5. Hindiyeh M,
    6. Mandelboim M,
    7. Dovrat S,
    8. Sofer D,
    9. Mendelson E
    . 2016. Superiority of West Nile virus RNA detection in whole blood for diagnosis of acute infection. J Clin Microbiol54:2294–2297. doi:10.1128/JCM.01283-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Litzba N,
    2. Zelena H,
    3. Kreil TR,
    4. Niklasson B,
    5. Kuhlmann-Rabens I,
    6. Remoli ME,
    7. Niedrig M
    . 2014. Evaluation of different serological diagnostic methods for tick-borne encephalitis virus: enzyme-linked immunosorbent, immunofluorescence, and neutralization assay. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis14:149–159. doi:10.1089/vbz.2012.1287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Sensitivity and Kinetics of an NS1-Based Zika Virus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Zika Virus-Infected Travelers from Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Chile
Yaniv Lustig, Hana Zelena, Giulietta Venturi, Marjan Van Esbroeck, Camilla Rothe, Cecilia Perret, Ravit Koren, Shiri Katz-Likvornik, Ella Mendelson, Eli Schwartz
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2017, 55 (6) 1894-1901; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00346-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sensitivity and Kinetics of an NS1-Based Zika Virus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Zika Virus-Infected Travelers from Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Chile
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Sensitivity and Kinetics of an NS1-Based Zika Virus Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay in Zika Virus-Infected Travelers from Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Chile
Yaniv Lustig, Hana Zelena, Giulietta Venturi, Marjan Van Esbroeck, Camilla Rothe, Cecilia Perret, Ravit Koren, Shiri Katz-Likvornik, Ella Mendelson, Eli Schwartz
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2017, 55 (6) 1894-1901; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00346-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Antibodies, Viral
Communicable Diseases, Imported
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Serologic Tests
Viral Nonstructural Proteins
Zika Virus Infection
Zika
NS1
ELISA
travelers
sensitivity

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X