Evaluation of five monoclonal antibody-based kits or reagents for the identification and culture confirmation of herpes simplex virus

Abstract

]) were evaluated for typing and laboratory confirmation of herpes simplex virus (HSV). Of 101 clinical isolates tested by each kit or reagent, results for 97 of them were in agreement. Identification of the four isolates with discordant results was performed by restriction endonuclease analysis of the viral DNA. The sensitivity and specificity of the Imagen and Bartels kits were 100%. For the Ortho, Syva, and Whittaker kits or reagents, the HSV type 1 (HSV-1) and HSV type 2 (HSV-2) sensitivities were 97.4 and 100%, 100 and 100%, and 97.4 and 100%, respectively, and the specificities were 100 and 97.4%, 100 and 92.4%, and 100 and 97.4%, respectively. There was one false-positive HSV-2 isolate identified by each of the Ortho and Whittaker kits or reagents. Three false-positive HSV-2 isolates occurred by staining with Syva, giving the erroneous indication of dual isolates. Several isolates stained with Imagen and Whittaker reagents displayed dull IF patterns. A dull green background occurred in ca. one-third of the HSV-2 isolates tested with the Ortho kit. The intensities of IF staining by the Bartels and Syva kits were satisfactory; however, the latter displayed a specificity of 92.7%. A total of 38 and 63 specimens were finally designated as HSV-1 and HSV-2, respectively. Identification of each isolate with the Bartels kit was consistently interpretable and is recommended as the typing and confirmatory assay of choice.

Typing of Clinical Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 and Type 2 Isolates with Monoclonal Antibodies

“…Since several HSV-specific monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have been shown to identify type-specific epitopes (2,5,11,17), these reagents have been used for type-specific antigen detection. However, the reported sensitivities and specificities for such reagents, including commercially available kits, have been found to vary among the assays in the range between 92 and 100% (4,6,7,17). This discrepancy may be explained by variability in the expression of different HSV proteins or intratypic variability of different epitopes within the same protein among the isolates (11).…”

Infectious and tropical diseases affecting the human mouth

“…Most primary infections by HSV-1 can be fairly confidently diagnosed by clinical examination alone, but in some cases, especially in immunocompromised individuals with lesions of an atypical appearance, laboratory testing can be valuable. Fluid from an intact vesicle or lesion, which has a very high concentration of virus particles, should be adsorbed onto a cotton swab, where it can be detected by immunological methods to demonstrate viral antigens (12,61,125,129,241). The swab can be put in viral transport medium and sent to the laboratory for testing within a few hours (72).…”

Detection of cutaneous herpes simplex virus infections by immunofluorescence vs. PCR

“…Direct identification of the virus can be done with cell culture, which is rather timeconsuming, electron microscopy, or antigen detection, quite often based on immunofluorescence techniques. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Reported sensitivities of different techniques vary widely. In addition, amplification of DNA from skin swabs by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has also been established.…”