Comparison of Immunofluorescence Antibody Testing and Two Enzyme Immunoassays in the Serologic Diagnosis of Malaria

She, Rosemary C.; Rawlins, Mindy L.; Mohl, Ramsey; Perkins, Sherrie L.; Hill, Harry R.; Litwin, Christine M.

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2006.00087.x

Cited by 52 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Immunofluorescence antibody testing (IFA) has been a reliable serologic test for malaria in recent decades [50]. Although IFA is time-consuming and subjective, it is highly sensitive and specific [51].…”

Section: Serological Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LDMS is rapid, high throughput, and automated. Compared with the microscopic method, which requires a skilled microscopist and up to Recently, other reliable malaria-diagnostic tests have been developed and introduced, and some tests are commercially available, for example, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)/ enzyme immunoassay (EIA) [50,54,85], latex agglutination assay [86], and cultivation of live malaria parasites [87,88]. Post-mortem organ diagnoses, by investigating malaria parasites in tissue autopsy, e.g.…”

Section: Mass Spectrophotometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Malaria Diagnosis: A Brief Review

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malaria is a major cause of death in tropical and sub-tropical countries, killing each year over 1 million people globally; 90% of fatalities occur in African children. Although effective ways to manage malaria now exist, the number of malaria cases is still increasing, due to several factors. In this emergency situation, prompt and effective diagnostic methods are essential for the management and control of malaria. Traditional methods for diagnosing malaria remain problematic; therefore, new technologies have been developed and introduced to overcome the limitations. This review details the currently available diagnostic methods for malaria.

show abstract

Section: Serological Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mass Spectrophotometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Malaria Diagnosis: A Brief Review

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These assays are typically easier to perform and exhibit higher throughput and better sensitivity and specificity than IFA (25,42,47), though this is not always the case (32). Some ELISAs may be better than others for detection of antibodies against all four Plasmodium species that cause malaria in humans (44). However, none of the available commercial assays currently include P. ovale-or P. malariae-derived antigens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection ofPlasmodium falciparum,P. vivax,P. ovale, andP. malariaeMerozoite Surface Protein 1-p19 Antibodies in Human Malaria Patients and Experimentally Infected Nonhuman Primates

Muerhoff

Birkenmeyer

Coffey

et al. 2010

Clin Vaccine Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately 3.2 billion people live in areas where malaria is endemic, and WHO estimates that 350 to 500 million malaria cases occur each year worldwide. This high prevalence, and the high frequency of international travel, creates significant risk for the exportation of malaria to countries where malaria is not endemic and for the introduction of malaria organisms into the blood supply. Since all four human infectious Plasmodium species have been transmitted by blood transfusion, we sought to develop an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) capable of detecting antibodies elicited by infection with any of these species. The merozoite surface protein 1 (MSP1), a P. falciparum and P. vivax vaccine candidate with a well-characterized immune response, was selected for use in the assay. The MSP1 genes from P. ovale and P. malariae The commercial ELISA detected all malaria patients with P. falciparum or P. vivax infections, as did the corresponding species-specific p19 ELISAs. However, the commercial ELISA detected antibodies in 0/2 and 5/8 individuals with P. malariae and P. ovale infections, respectively, while the p19 assays detected 100% of individuals with confirmed P. malariae or P. ovale infections. In experimentally infected nonhuman primates, the use of MSP1-p19 antigens from all four species resulted in the detection of antibodies within 2 to 10 weeks postinfection. Use of MSP1-p19 antigens from all four Plasmodium species in a single immunoassay would provide significantly improved efficacy compared to existing tests.

show abstract

“…For instance, in a study using cELISA and ICT Malaria Pf diagnostic kits to detect malaria, the cELISA kit had a sensitivity of 71% for 203 patients infected with P. falciparum (Silvie et al 2002). However, for samples from travellers living in Utah, USA, the cELISA PMAb test exhibited better overall sensitivity (95.5%) and specificity (92.2%) compared to the Newmarket Malaria ELISA (68.1% and 96.1%, respectively) and IFA tests (86.4% and 91.7%, respectively) (She et al 2007). Consistent with this finding, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the cELISA P. falciparum antigen detection assay was 98.8% and 100%, when used on samples from the Thailand-Myanmar border (Noedl et al 2006); importantly, sensitivity did not decrease at a low parasite density.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%