Affiliation:
1. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
2. Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Mumps
virus-neutralizing antibodies are believed to be the most predictable
surrogate marker of protective immunity. However, assays used to detect
neutralizing antibodies, such as the plaque reduction neutralization
(PRN) assay, are labor- and time-intensive and consequently are often
supplanted by the more rapid and inexpensive enzyme immunoassay (EIA)
technique. For virus infections for which international antibody
standards exist and are bridged to clinical studies of protection
(e.g., measles and rubella), the EIA has been successfully used to
determine immune surrogate endpoints, yet no such international
reference exists for mumps serology. Since both virus-neutralizing and
nonneutralizing antibodies are measured in the EIA, in the absence of a
mumps serological standard, the EIA may be prone to yielding
false-positive results when utilized for assessing surrogate markers of
protective immunity. Moreover, since mumps virus-specific antibody
titers are generally low in comparison to antibody levels induced by
other viruses and EIA procedures often employ relatively high serum
dilution factors, the EIA may be prone to yielding false-negative
results. To examine these issues, a PRN assay and two commercially
available EIA kits were used to evaluate wild-type mumps virus
serological responses in human serum samples from the pre-mumps vaccine
era. Our results indicate that the PRN assay is a more sensitive and
specific method of measuring serological responses to wild-type mumps
virus.
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Cited by
41 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献