CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ludwig, G. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ludwig, G. V.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, November 2001, p. 1070-1075, Vol. 8, No. 6
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.6.1070-1075.2001

Comparison of Dissociation-Enhanced Lanthanide Fluorescent Immunoassays to Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detection of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B, Yersinia pestis-Specific F1 Antigen, and Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus

Darci R. Smith, Cynthia A. Rossi,* Todd M. Kijek, Erik A. Henchal, and George V. Ludwig

Diagnostic Systems Division, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702

Received 9 March 2001/Returned for modification 11 May 2001/Accepted 2 August 2001

The dissociation-enhanced lanthanide fluorescent immunoassays (DELFIA) were developed for the detection of staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Yersinia pestis-specific F1 antigen, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. These assays were compared to previously developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) by determining the sensitivity or limit of detection (LOD), the dynamic range, and the reproducibility of each assay in a number of different sample matrices. The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were then determined by using a small panel of blinded spiked and nonspiked samples. All three DELFIAs demonstrated at least 1 log greater sensitivity than corresponding ELISAs utilizing the same reagents and showed an increase in dynamic range of at least 2 log10 concentrations. This increased LOD resulted in higher sensitivity rates for the DELFIA. The specificity of all of the assays evaluated was 100%, and no sample matrix effects were observed in either format. However, the reproducibility of the DELFIA was poor due to randomly distributed wells exhibiting excessive background signal (hot wells), which occurred throughout the evaluation. As this technology matures, the reproducibility of these assays should improve, as will the ability to identify hot wells. Despite its sensitivity, the logistical burden associated with the DELFIA and the technical expertise required to complete assays and interpret the data limit the application of this technology to reference or large clinical laboratories.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 1425 Porter St., Diagnostic Systems Division, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD 21702. Phone: (301) 619-4776. Fax: (301) 619-2492. E-mail: cindy.rossi{at}det.amedd.army.mil.


Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, November 2001, p. 1070-1075, Vol. 8, No. 6
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.6.1070-1075.2001



This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.