Comparison of test specificities of commercial antigen-based assays and in-house PCR methods for detection of rotavirus in stool specimens

S Ye; S B Lambert; K Grimwood; S Roczo-Farkas; G R Nimmo; T P Sloots; C D Kirkwood; D M Whiley

doi:10.1128/JCM.02251-14

Comparison of test specificities of commercial antigen-based assays and in-house PCR methods for detection of rotavirus in stool specimens

J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Jan;53(1):295-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02251-14. Epub 2014 Oct 22.

Authors

S Ye¹, S B Lambert², K Grimwood³, S Roczo-Farkas⁴, G R Nimmo⁵, T P Sloots⁶, C D Kirkwood⁷, D M Whiley⁸

Affiliations

¹ Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Microbiology Division, Pathology Queensland Central Laboratory, Herston, Queensland, Australia Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
² Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Communicable Diseases Unit, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia.
³ Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University and Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
⁴ Enteric Virus Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
⁵ Microbiology Division, Pathology Queensland Central Laboratory, Herston, Queensland, Australia School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁷ Enteric Virus Research Group, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Department of Microbiology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
⁸ Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia d.whiley@uq.edu.au.

Abstract

Seven commercial rotavirus antigen assays were compared with in-house PCR methods for detecting rotavirus in stool specimens. The assay sensitivities were 80% to 100%, while the specificities were 54.3% for one commercial immunochromatographic (ICT) method and 99.4% to 100% for other assays. Thus, except for one commercial ICT, all the assays were generally reliable for rotavirus detection.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Chromatography, Affinity / methods*
Feces / virology*
Female
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Male
Middle Aged
Polymerase Chain Reaction / methods*
Reproducibility of Results
Rotavirus / genetics*
Rotavirus / isolation & purification*
Rotavirus Infections / diagnosis*
Rotavirus Infections / virology*
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult