Comparison of Three Commercially Available Peptide-Based Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA Assays to Microimmunofluorescence Assay for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis Antibodies
Open Access
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society for Microbiology in Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Vol. 40 (2) , 584-587
- https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.40.2.584-587.2002
Abstract
Three commercially available, peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) systems (Chlamydia trachomatis IgG and IgA EIA [CT-EIA; Labsystems OY, Helsinki, Finland], SeroCT IgG and IgA [SeroCT; Savyon Diagnostics Ltd., Ashdod, Israel], and Chlamydia trachomatis IgG and IgA pELISA [CT pELISA; Medac, Wedel, Germany]) were evaluated for the detection of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA antibodies specific for Chlamydia trachomatis and compared to the “gold standard” assay, the microimmunofluorescence (MIF) assay. Serological responses were analyzed in 149 women aged 20 to 30 years. Cervical swabs obtained from these women were examined for C. trachomatis by PCR, and 43 were found to be positive. The overall seroprevalence rates detected by CT-EIA, SeroCT, CT pELISA, and the MIF assay were 42, 42, 35, and 39%, respectively, for IgG and 7, 7, 3, and 7%, respectively, for IgA. The IgG seroprevalence rates for the PCR-positive women were two to three times higher than those for the PCR-negative women, i.e., 72 versus 29%, 72 versus 29%, 47 versus 26%, and 74 versus 25% for CT-EIA, SeroCT, CT pELISA, and the MIF assay, respectively. After discrepancy analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for the IgG assays; for CT-EIA they were 84.7, 98.6, 98.4, and 86.7%, respectively; for CT pELISA they were 71.4, 97.3, 96.2, and 78.3%, respectively; for SeroCT they were 84.7, 98.6, 98.4, and 86.3%, respectively; and for the MIF assay they were 79.2, 83.1, 98.3, and 83.1%, respectively. In conclusion, these peptide-based ELISA systems for the serological detection of C. trachomatis infection performed as well as the MIF assay. Since these tests are less time-consuming, less expensive, and easier to perform than the MIF assay, they might be useful in the serodiagnosis of chlamydial infection.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Serotypes of Chlamydia trachomatis and Risk for Development of Cervical Squamous Cell CarcinomaJAMA, 2001
- Comparison of Five Serologic Tests for Diagnosis of Acute Infections by Chlamydia pneumoniaeClinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, 2000
- RNA amplification by nucleic acid sequence-based amplification with an internal standard enables reliable detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in cervical scrapings and urine samplesJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 1996
- A non-radioactive PCR enzyme-immunoassay enables a rapid identification of HPV 16 and 18 in cervical scrapes after GP5+/6+ PCRJournal of Medical Virology, 1996
- Human papillomavirus—the most significant risk determinant of cervical intraepithelial neoplasiaInternational Journal of Cancer, 1996
- Enzyme immunoassay with enhanced specificity for detection of antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatisJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 1994
- Chlamydia trachomatis species specific serology: ImmunoComb chlamydia bivalent versus microimmunofluorescence (MIF)Infection, 1994
- Serological cross-reactions between Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and chlamydiaeJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 1979