Korean J Lab Med.  2007 Dec;27(6):437-441. 10.3343/kjlm.2007.27.6.437.

Comparisons of Latex Agglutination, Immunochromatography and Enzyme Immunoassay Methods for the Detection of Rotavirus Antigen

• Lee SY
• Hong JH
• Lee SW
• Lee M

• KMID: 1781548
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2007.27.6.437

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is the most common cause of childhood gastroenteritis during winter season. Rapid, accurate diagnosis is essential for preventing severe complications of rotaviral gastroenteritis. The sensitivity and specificity of five detection test kits for rotavirus including latex agglutination (LAT), enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and three immunochromatographic methods (ICG) were evaluated in this study. METHODS: A total of 95 stool samples collected from patients with acute gastroenteritis were studied. The test kits were as follows: LAT (Slidex latex, bioMerieux Vitek, France); three kinds of ICG (Dipstick ROTA, Eiken, Japan; SAS Rota Test, SA Scientific, Inc., USA; and ASAN Easy Test Rota strip, ASAN Pharmaceutical., Korea); and EIA (VIDAS Rotavirus, bioMerieux Vitek). The samples showing discordant results were reevaluated by reverse-transcription (RT) PCR and clinical manifestations. RESULTS: Of a total of 95 cases, 56 (58.9%) were positive and 39 (41.1%) were negative. Thirteen cases showed discordant results. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 85.7% and 100% for LAT, 100% and 95% for both of Dipstick ROTA and SAS Rota, 86.7% and 87.5% for ASAN Rota strip and 98.1% and 97.3% for EIA. CONCLUSIONS: LAT was rapid and easy to perform and showed the lowest sensitivity among the five test kits. ICG showed a good agreement with EIA and RT-PCR. EIA was the best in respect of sensitivity and specificity, but difficulty in interpretations of equivocal results and time-consuming procedures were limitations. In conclusion, ICG, which is easy to perform at a low cost, may be an optimal method in place of LAT for the detection of rotavirus.

Keyword

Rotavirus; Latex agglutination; Immunochromatography; Enzyme Immunoassay

MeSH Terms

Antigens, Viral/*analysis
Chromatography/*methods
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/*methods
Gastroenteritis/virology
Humans
Latex Fixation Tests/*methods
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
Rotavirus/immunology/*isolation & purification
Rotavirus Infections/*diagnosis
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

1.Wilhelmi I., Roman E., Sanchez-Fauquier A. Viruses causing gastroenteritis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003. 9:247–62.

2.Anderson EJ., Weber SG. Rotavirus infection in adults. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004. 4:91–9.

3.Kim HS., Jang MW., Kim CH., Lee HH., Yoo HJ. Clinical study of rotavirus gastroenteritis in the last 2 years. Korean J Pediatr. 2005. 48:1116–20. (김형식, 장명완, 김철홍, 이현희, 유황재. 최근 2년간로타바이러스장염에대한임상적연구. 소아과 2005;48: 1116-20).

4.Knisley CV., Bednarz-Prashad AJ., Pickering LK. Detection of rotavirus in stool specimens with monoclonal and polyclonal antibody-based assay systems. J Clin Microbiol. 1986. 23:897–900.

5.Dennehy PH., Schutzbank TE., Thorne GM. Evaluation of an automated immunodiagnostic assay, VIDAS Rotavirus, for detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1994. 32:825–7.

6.Dennehy PH., Gauntlett DR., Spangenberger SE. Choice of reference assay for the detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens: electron microscopy versus enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol. 1990. 28:1280–3.

7.Raboni SM., Noguiera MB., Hakim VM., Torrecilha VT., Lerner H., Tsuchiya LR. Comparison of latex agglutination with enzyme immunoassay for detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002. 117:392–4.

8.Sambourg M., Goudeau A., Courant C., Pinon G., Denis F. Direct appraisal of latex agglutination testing, a convenient alternative to enzyme immunoassay for the detection of rotavirus in childhood gastroenteritis, by comparison of two enzyme immunoassays and two latex tests. J Clin Microbiol. 1985. 21:622–5.

9.Pai CH., Shahrabadi MS., Ince B. Rapid diagnosis of rotavirus gastroenteritis by a commercial latex agglutination test. J Clin Microbiol. 1985. 22:846–50.

10.Brandt CD., Arndt CW., Evans GL., Kim HW., Stallings EP., Rodriguez WJ, et al. Evaluation of a latex test for rotavirus detection. J Clin Microbiol. 1987. 25:1800–2.

11.Wilhelmi I., Colomina J., Martin-Rodrigo D., Roman E., Sanchez-Fauquier A. New immunochromatographic method for rapid detection of rotaviruses in stool samples compared with standard enzyme immunoassay and latex agglutination techniques. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001. 20:741–3.

12.Dennehy PH., Hartin M., Nelson SM., Reising SF. Evaluation of the ImmunoCardSTAT! rotavirus assay for detection of group A rotavirus in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1999. 37:1977–9.

13.Persing DH, Smith TF, editors. Diagnostic molecular microbiology: principles and applications. 1st ed.Washinton D.C.: American Society for Microbiology;1993. p. 383–8.

14.Dennehy PH., Gauntlett DR., Tente WE. Comparison of nine commercial immunoassay for the detection of rotavirus in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1988. 26:1630–4.

15.Kang JO., Kim SE., Kim TY., Park IK., Choi TY. Trends in rotavirus gastroenteritis in Korea from 1989 through 1998 and comparison of Slidex Rota-kit 2 and VIDAS Rotavirus. Korean J Clin Microbiol. 1999. 2:152–7. (강정옥, 김선의, 김신규, 박일규, 최태열. 로타바이러스성장염의유행경향변화및 Slidex Rota-Kit 2와 VIDAS Rotavirus의비교. a대한임상미생물학회지 1999;2: 152-7.).

16.Eing BR., May G., Baumeister HG., Kuhn JE. Evaluation of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of human rotaviruses in fecal specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2001. 39:4532–4.