Large differences between test strategies for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies are revealed by comparing eight ELISAs and five immunoblots

71Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We investigated the influence of assay choice on the results in a two-tier testing algorithm for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies. Eighty-nine serum samples from clinically well-defined patients were tested in eight different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) systems based on whole-cell antigens, whole-cell antigens supplemented with VlsE and assays using exclusively recombinant proteins. A subset of samples was tested in five immunoblots: one whole-cell blot, one whole-cell blot supplemented with VlsE and three recombinant blots. The number of IgM-and/or IgG-positive ELISA results in the group of patients suspected of Borrelia infection ranged from 34 to 59%. The percentage of positives in cross-reactivity controls ranged from 0 to 38%. Comparison of immunoblots yielded large differences in inter-test agreement and showed, at best, a moderate agreement between tests. Remarkably, some immunoblots gave positive results in samples that had been tested negative by all eight ELISAs. The percentage of positive blots following a positive ELISA result depended heavily on the choice of ELISA-immunoblot combination. We conclude that the assays used to detect anti-Borrelia antibodies have widely divergent sensitivity and specificity. The choice of ELISA-immunoblot combination severely influences the number of positive results, making the exchange of test results between laboratories with different methodologies hazardous. © 2011 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ang, C. W., Notermans, D. W., Hommes, M., Simoons-Smit, A. M., & Herremans, T. (2011). Large differences between test strategies for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies are revealed by comparing eight ELISAs and five immunoblots. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 30(8), 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-011-1157-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free