Evaluation of a commercial ELISA for H5 low pathogenic avian influenza virus antibody detection in duck sera using Bayesian methods

A novel epitope-blocking ELISA for specific and sensitive detection of antibodies against H5-subtype influenza virus hemagglutinin

“…The diagnostic performance of the FluAC H5 test has been evaluated in the domestic poultry population of Vietnam, partially vaccinated with reassortant H5N1 LP virus vaccine [21], ducks experimentally infected with LP and HP H5-subtype AIVs or immunized with H5 HAencoding DNA vaccine [22], waterfowl experimentally infected with LP and HP H5N1 AIVs [23], mute swans [24], and zoo birds vaccinated with inactivated H5N9 AI vaccine [25]. In some of these studies, the assay showed low degree of cross-reactivity with antisera to the non-H5 subtype AIVs [21], a specificity value of only 89.4% [22] and variable sensitivity depending on the tested viral strain [17,23]. In particular, low rates of detecting anti-H5 HA antibodies, 14% and 22%, were noted for antisera against the A/Chicken/West Java/SMI-PAT/2006 H5N1 HPAIV [23] and Egyptian HPAIV H5N1 antigenic drift variant [17], respectively.…”

A Novel Epitope-Blocking ELISA for Specific and Sensitive Detection of Antibodies Against H5-Subtype Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin

“…The diagnostic performance of the FluAC H5 test has been evaluated in the domestic poultry population of Vietnam, partially vaccinated with reassortant H5N1 LP virus vaccine [21], ducks experimentally infected with LP and HP H5-subtype AIVs or immunized with H5 HA-encoding DNA vaccine [22], waterfowl experimentally infected with LP and HP H5N1 AIVs [23], mute swans [24], and zoo birds vaccinated with inactivated H5N9 AI vaccine [25]. In some of these studies, the assay showed low degree of cross-reactivity with antisera to the non-H5 subtype AIVs [21], a speci city value of only 89.4% [22] and variable sensitivity depending on the tested viral strain [17,23]. In particular, low rates of detecting anti-H5 HA antibodies, 14% and 22%, were noted for antisera against the A/Chicken/West Java/SMI-PAT/2006 H5N1 HPAIV [23] and Egyptian HPAIV H5N1 antigenic drift variant [17], respectively.…”

Effect of biosecurity measures and early detection systems, mitigation measures and surveillance strategies on the spread of HPAI and LPAI between farms

“…The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. (Rabl et al, 2009) Language (Ramakrishnan et al, 2009) Not relevant outcomes (Ramey et al, 2014) Not relevant outcomes (Ramis et al, 2014) Not relevant outcomes (Rauw et al, 2012) Not relevant outcomes (Rauw et al, 2011) Not relevant outcomes (Rawdon et al, 2010 (Sakoda et al, 2012) Territory (Saksena et al, 2015) Territory (Salman, 2009) Not relevant outcomes (Sansyzbay et al, 2013) Study population (Sarikaya and Erbaydar, 2007) Study population (Sartore et al, 2010) Not relevant outcomes (Schmitz et al, 2013) Not relevant outcomes (Schroeer et al, 2009) Not relevant outcomes (Schroeer et al, 2011) Not relevant outcomes (Schultsz et al, 2009) Study population (Schweiger and Buda, 2013) Language Study population (Senne, 2010) Territory The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure.…”