A detection method for swine fever antibodies suitable for large-scale application
At present, the recommended detection methods for swine fever antibodies by animal health organizations are ELISA detection method and fluorescent antibody neutralization test. However, fluorescent antibody neutralization test has high requirements for experimental conditions and operators, and is time-consuming. It is only suitable for laboratory testing of a small number of samples and is not suitable for promotion and application. Therefore, it can be said that the ELISA method is currently recognized as a suitable detection method for large-scale application of swine fever antibodies.
When evaluating ELISA detection methods, two important indicators are sensitivity and specificity, and there is a contradiction between the two. When high sensitivity is required for a detection method, some specificity may be lost; Similarly, when high specificity is required, some sensitivity may be lost. Therefore, for a good detection method, it is necessary to find a balance and binding point between sensitivity and specificity. At present, the ELISA methods used for detecting antibodies against swine fever mainly have two principles: segmented ELISA and indirect ELISA.
The separation ELISA and indirect ELISA are both reasonable in practical applications. However, in response to the current situation of large-scale mandatory immunization against swine fever in China, how to choose suitable reagent kits in different application areas has become an important issue.
Analysis of the conformity rate between two reagent kits and fluorescent antibody virus neutralization test
The Fluorescent Antibody Virus Neutrality Test (FVNT) is a recommended method by OIE. Clinical trials have shown that 283 serum samples with differences in detection results between two ELISA antibody detection kits were confirmed using FVNT method. The results showed that the coincidence rate between the indirect kit and FVNT was 69.26%, and the coincidence rate between the blocking kit and FVNT was 28.62%. The confirmation results that do not match the sample indicate that the indirect test kit can truly reflect the neutralizing antibody level after vaccine immunization, while the blocking test kit has a missed detection of positive serum.
Please indicate the source when reprinting: http://www.dkoley.com
Share：
