↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of different commercial ELISAs for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of different commercial ELISAs for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12917-014-0300-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatjana Sattler, Eveline Wodak, Sandra Revilla-Fernández, Friedrich Schmoll

Abstract

BackgroundIn recent years, several new ELISAs for the detection of antibodies against the porcine reproductive and respiratory disease virus (PRRSV) in pig serum have been developed. To interpret the results, specificity and sensitivity data as well as agreement to a reference ELISA must be available. In this study, three commercial ELISAs (INgezim PRRS 2.0 - ELISA II, Priocheck® PRRSV Ab porcine ¿ ELISA III and CIVTEST suis PRRS E/S PLUS - ELISA IV, detecting PRRSV type 1 antibodies) were compared to a standard ELISA (IDEXX PRRS X3 Ab Test - ELISA I). The serum of three pigs vaccinated with an attenuated PRRSV live vaccine (genotype 2) was tested prior to and several times after the vaccination. Furthermore, serum samples of 245 pigs of PRRSV positive herds, 309 pigs of monitored PRRSV negative herds, 256 fatteners of assumed PRRSV negative herds with unknown herd history and 92 wild boars were tested with all four ELISAs.ResultsELISAs II and III were able to detect seroconversion of vaccinated pigs with a similar reliability. According to kappa coefficient, the results showed an almost perfect agreement between ELISA I as reference and ELISA II and III (kappa¿>¿0.8), and substantial agreement between ELISA I and ELISA IV (kappa¿=¿0.71). Sensitivity of ELISA II, III and IV was 96.0%, 100% and 91.5%, respectively. The specificity of the ELISAs determined in samples of monitored PRRSV negative herds was 99.0%, 95.1% and 96.4%, respectively. In assumed negative farms that were not continually monitored, more positive samples were found with ELISA II to IV. The reference ELISA I had a specificity of 100% in this study.ConclusionsAll tested ELISAs were able to detect a PRRSV positive herd. The specificity and sensitivity of the tested commercial ELISAs, however, differed. ELISA II had the highest specificity and ELISA III had the highest sensitivity in comparison to the reference ELISA. ELISA IV had a lower sensitivity and specificity than the other ELISAs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Unspecified 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 28%
Unspecified 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,211,070
of 4,691,823 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#505
of 816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,098
of 155,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#31
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,691,823 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 155,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.