Rubella-specific IgM reactivity in sera from cases of infectious mononucleosis

Morgan‐Capner, P.; Tedder, Richard S.; Mace, J E

doi:10.1017/s0022172400029041

Cited by 77 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we demonstrated a significant rise in HA1 or IgG titers. The same was true for the cases [Morgan-Capner, 1983;Morgan-Capner et al, 1983;Best et al, 19841 and three pregnant women with presumed polyclonal antibody stimulation. In all these cases IgM levels were of borderline value detectable most frequently by the ELISA Enzygnost IgM without latex adsorption followed by Rubazyme M and HIT.…”

Section: Correlation Of Sdg Igm Antibody Results With Other Igm Testssupporting

confidence: 52%

Comparison of various serological methods and diagnostic kits for the detection of acute, recent, and previous rubella infection, vaccination, and congenital infections

Enders¹,

Knotek²,

Pacher³

1985

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antibody development after natural rubella infection and rubella vaccination has been followed in 802 sera from 493 patients and 71 sera from 22 vaccinees. Also examined were 67 sera from 28 infants with rubella embryopathy and sera from 50 children with presumed prenatal infection. In addition, 777 sera from 641 patients tested for routine rubella diagnosis were studied. Anamnestic information was available from all these patients. These sera were assayed for IgM antibody detection by sucrose density gradient (SDG), the commercial ELISAs (Enzygnost IgM and Rubazyme M), and the non-commercial anti-my-hemadsorption immunosorbent technique (HIT). For the determination of IgG antibodies the hemagglutination inhibition test (HAI), the commercial ELISAs (Enzygnost IgG, Rubazyme), and a single radial hemolysis test (SRH) were used. The SDG and HIT were less sensitive for IgM antibody detection than the two ELISAs, particularly when IgM concentrations were low. In total 26.5% of the IgM results with the newer tests were discordant with SDG, but only 0.5-1.3% of these results were not explicable when the clinical data was considered. Problems were encountered with all IgM assay systems used. For the detection of rubella antibodies after acute infection and vaccination the ELISA Enzygnost IgG was as sensitive as the HAI whereas the ELISA Rubazyme and SRH detected antibodies with some delay. Corresponding results with all tests were found more than 25 days after acute infection and more than 50 days after vaccination. All methods can be used for detection of antibodies in infants with rubella embryopathy. The results of this study suggest that certain combinations of tests can be used for the reliable detection of rubella infection.

show abstract

Section: Correlation Of Sdg Igm Antibody Results With Other Igm Testssupporting

confidence: 52%

Comparison of various serological methods and diagnostic kits for the detection of acute, recent, and previous rubella infection, vaccination, and congenital infections

Enders¹,

Knotek²,

Pacher³

1985

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It would obviously be of interest to examine further sera from cases of hepatitis A in view of the likely classification ofhepatitis A virus as an enterovirus (Melnick, 1982). A larger number of sera from cases of infectious mononucleosis also require evaluation in view of the recent finding of rubella-specific IgM detectable by MACRIA during acute Epstein-Barr virus infection (Morgan-Capner, Tedder & Mace, 1983). However, the levels of rubella-specific IgM detected were low and such levels of enterovirus-specific IgM would be unlikely to be a problem in the assays described here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Antibody capture radioimmunoassay (MACRIA) for coxsackievirus B4 and B5-specific IgM

Morgan‐Capner

McSorley

1983

J. Hyg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAn antibody capture radioimmunoassay was established for the detection of coxsackievirus B4 and B5-specific IgM. A significant feature of the assay was the use of an unrefined coxsackievirus B (CBV) antigen. The antigen was prepared by freeze thawing, ultrasonication and low speed centrifugation of infected Vero cells with no purification or concentration of the antigen being performed. Results of sera tested were expressed as a serum ratio (SR) by comparison with a low positive control serum. To establish an SR indicating positivity in the assays, 100 antenatal sera collected in late February were tested. The mean SR was calculated and the mean plus three standard deviations was taken as the minimum SR indicating positivity. Although resulting in a relatively insensitive assay, such a value was required to exclude sera giving a low level of reactivity which may be due to residual enterovirus-specific IgM resulting from a remote infection.The homologous CBV-IgM assay was positive in four cases of CBV4 infection and six cases of CBV5 infection. For the CBV4 IgM assay, ten of 20 (50 %) sera from infections with CBV other than CBV4 were positive and nine of the 13 (69 %) sera from infections with echoviruses or coxsackieviruses A were positive. Five of 18 (27 %) sera with an elevated CBV neutralization titre were positive in the CBV4-IgM assay. For the CB5-IgM assay seven of 18 (39 %) sera from infections with CBV other than CBV5 were positive and nine of 13 (69 %) sera from infections with echoviruses or coxsackieviruses A were positive. The nine sera that were positive from this group in the CBV5-IgM assay were the same nine as were positive in the CBV4-IgM assay. Two of the 18 (11 %) sera with an elevated CBV neutralization titre were positive in the CBV5-IgM assay. These two sera were also positive in the CBV4-IgM assay and had an elevated monotypic CBV4 neutralization titre. None of the sera giving positive results gave significant reactivity when tested with control antigen. Twelve rheumatoid factor containing sera and 46 sera from other infections were negative in both assays. Of 24 sera from confirmed CBV infection, seven gave a positive monotypic CBV4 or 5-IgM response, ten were positive in both assays and seven were negative in both assays. Thus the CBV4 and 5-IgM assays developed appeared to be specific for an enterovirus infection but because of the cross-reactivity were not type-specific or group-specific.

show abstract

“…This phenomenon has been well described and must be considered in interpreting viral IgM serology results (17,18,24). In countries with established vaccination programs, the incidence of acute wild-type rubella virus infection is extremely low.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…responses after infection with other agents can cause falsepositive results in RV IgM assays due to cross-reactivity (17,18,24). It is therefore important that the limitations of the assays are well understood by laboratory personnel in order to avoid the misinterpretation of results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Three Immunoassays Used for Detection of Anti-Rubella Virus Immunoglobulin M Antibodies

Dimech

Panagiotopoulos

Marler

et al. 2005

Clin Vaccine Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three automated assays (Abbott AxSYM, Bayer ADVIA Centaur, and bioMerieux VIDAS) used for the detection of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin M were evaluated. A total of 57 samples from individuals with evidence of infection with rubella virus were used to estimate sensitivity, and 220 samples from blood donors and individuals attending an antenatal clinic who had no evidence of recent infection were used to estimate specificity. Seroconversion panels comprising an additional 31 samples from four individuals were used to determine clinical sensitivity. Samples containing potentially cross-reacting substances were also tested. The sensitivities of the three assays ranged from 84.2 to 96.5%, and the specificities ranged from 96.8 to 99.9%. The Abbott AxSYM assay detected more reactive samples than the other two assays when a panel of 57 positive samples was tested. Bayer ADVIA Centaur detected more reactive samples in the seroconversion panels than the other two assays. All three assays evaluated reported a reactive result in 1 or more of the 48 samples containing potentially cross-reacting analytes. The assays demonstrated comparable performance in testing of a well-characterized panel of samples.Infections with rubella virus (RV) are usually mild, often presenting with a maculopapular rash of the head and trunk, lymphadenopathy, a fleeting fever, and arthritis (11, 30). Studies have shown that 20 to 50% of infections are subclinical. However, serious sequelae result from maternal infection during the first trimester of pregnancy, with a 90% risk of fetal damage if the infection occurs in the first 2 months of pregnancy and a 50% risk if infection occurs in the third month (7,11,15). The teratogenic effects of infection in utero include ocular defects (cataracts, retinopathy, and glaucoma), partial or complete cochlear deafness, and mental retardation associated with microcephaly or encephalitis (7,15,30). The effects of congenital rubella syndrome are lifelong. In adulthood, affected individuals have been reported to have increased levels of diabetes, osteoporosis, and thyroid disorders (9).Typically infection occurs via the respiratory route, with viral replication occurring in the nasopharynx. The incubation period is 2 to 3 weeks, with viremia occurring during the second week. Symptoms are usually apparent at the time of the viremia and for several days after the rash appears. Rubella virus can be isolated from nasopharyngeal samples for as long as 2 weeks after the rash (6, 30). The antibody response also coincides with the viremia (30). RV-specific immunoglobulin M (RV IgM) is detectable after the incubation period, usually at the time of the maculopapular rash. RV IgM usually declines to undetectable levels after approximately 8 weeks. RV IgG levels rise more slowly, reach a peak several weeks after symptoms disappear, and persist for life (30). As the RV IgG response matures, the avidity of the antibody reaction to RV increases (25,26).Diagnosis of primary RV infection in adults can be difficult (1, 6...

show abstract

Rubella-specific IgM reactivity in sera from cases of infectious mononucleosis

Cited by 77 publications

References 11 publications

Comparison of various serological methods and diagnostic kits for the detection of acute, recent, and previous rubella infection, vaccination, and congenital infections

Comparison of various serological methods and diagnostic kits for the detection of acute, recent, and previous rubella infection, vaccination, and congenital infections

Antibody capture radioimmunoassay (MACRIA) for coxsackievirus B4 and B5-specific IgM

Evaluation of Three Immunoassays Used for Detection of Anti-Rubella Virus Immunoglobulin M Antibodies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About