Comparison of serological assays for detecting antibodies in ducks exposed to H5 subtype avian influenza virus

BMC Veterinary Research

Joanne Meers²  Akhmad Junaidi¹  John Bingham⁴  Sue Lowther⁴  Tri Bhakti Usman³  Dessie Eri Waluyati³  Joerg Henning²  Hendra Wibawa³ 

[1] Present address: Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Jakarta, Indonesia;School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, Gatton, QLD, Australia;Disease Investigation Centre Wates, Yogyakarta, Indonesia;CSIRO-Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong, VIC, Australia

关键词: Kappa;    Duck;    Horse red blood cells;    Virus neutralization test;    Hemagglutination inhibition test;    H5N1;    Avian influenza;   

Others  :  1119770
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-8-117

 received in 2012-04-05, accepted in 2012-06-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Chicken red blood cells (RBCs) are commonly used in hemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests to measure hemagglutinating antibodies against influenza viruses. The use of horse RBCs in the HI test can reportedly increase its sensitivity when testing human sera for avian influenza antibodies. This study aims to compare the proportion of positives detected and the agreement between two HI tests using either chicken or horse red blood cells for antibody detection in sera of ducks experimentally infected or naturally exposed to Indonesian H5 subtype avian influenza virus. In addition, comparison with a virus neutralisation (VN) test was conducted with the experimental sera.

Results

In the experimental study, the proportion of HI antibody-positive ducks increased slightly, from 0.57 when using chicken RBCs to 0.60 when using horse RBCs. The HI tests indicated almost perfect agreement (kappa = 0.86) when results were dichotomised (titre ≥ 4 log2), and substantial agreement (weighted kappa = 0.80) for log titres. Overall agreements between the two HI tests were greater than between either of the HI tests and the VN test. The use of horse RBCs also identified a higher proportion of antibody positives in field duck sera (0.08, compared to chicken RBCs 0.02), with also almost perfect agreements for dichotomized results (Prevalence and bias adjusted Kappa (PABAK) = 0.88) and for log titres (weighted PABAK = 0.93), respectively. Factors that might explain observed differences in the proportion of antibody-positive ducks and in the agreements between HI tests are discussed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we identified a good agreement between HI tests. However, when horse RBCs were used, a higher proportion of sera was positive (titre ≥ 4 log2) than using chicken RBCs, especially during the early response against H5N1 virus. The HRBC-HI might be more responsive in identifying early H5N1 HPAI serological response and could be a recommended assay for avian influenza sero-surveillance in both wild and domestic birds.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Wibawa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sims LD, Ellis TM, Liu KK, Dyrting K, Wong H, Peiris M, Guan Y, Shortridge KE: Avian influenza in Hong Kong 1997–2002. Avian Dis 2003, 47:832-838.
• [2]Sturm-Ramirez KM, Ellis T, Bousfield B, Bissett L, Dyrting K, Rehg JE, Poon L, Guan Y, Peiris M, Webster RG: Reemerging H5N1 influenza viruses in Hong Kong in 2002 are highly pathogenic to ducks. J Virol 2004, 78:4892-4901.
• [3]Guan Y, Smith GJ, Webby R, Webster RG: Molecular epidemiology of H5N1 avian influenza. Rev Sci Tech 2009, 28:39-47.
• [4]Smith GJ, Naipospos TS, Nguyen TD, de Jong MD, Vijaykrishna D, Usman TB, Hassan SS, Nguyen TV, Dao TV, Bui NA, et al.: Evolution and adaptation of H5N1 influenza virus in avian and human hosts in Indonesia and Vietnam. Virology 2006, 350:258-268.
• [5]Alexander DJ: Summary of avian influenza activity in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australasia, 2002–2006. Avian Dis 2007, 51:161-166.
• [6]Wang G, Zhan D, Li L, Lei F, Liu B, Liu D, Xiao H, Feng Y, Li J, Yang B, et al.: H5N1 avian influenza re-emergence of Lake Qinghai: phylogenetic and antigenic analyses of the newly isolated viruses and roles of migratory birds in virus circulation. J Gen Virol 2008, 89:697-702.
• [7]Amonsin A, Lapkuntod J, Suwannakarn K, Kitikoon P, Suradhat S, Tantilertcharoen R, Boonyapisitsopa S, Bunpapong N, Wongphatcharachai M, Wisedchanwet T, et al.: Genetic characterization of reassortant influenza A virus (H5N1), Thailand. Virol J 2010, 7:233. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Wan XF, Nguyen T, Davis CT, Smith CB, Zhao ZM, Carrel M, Inui K, Do HT, Mai DT, Jadhao S, et al.: Evolution of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza viruses in Vietnam between 2001 and 2007. PLoS One 2008, 3:e3462.
• [9]Chakrabarti AK, Pawar SD, Cherian SS, Koratkar SS, Jadhav SM, Pal B, Raut S, Thite V, Kode SS, Keng SS, et al.: Characterization of the Influenza A H5N1 Viruses of the 2008–09 Outbreaks in India Reveals a Third Introduction and Possible Endemicity. PLoS One 2009, 4:e7846.
• [10]Ahmed SSU, Ersboll AK, Biswas PK, Christensen JP: The space-time clustering of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 outbreaks in Bangladesh. Epidemiol Infect 2010, 138:843-852.
• [11]Hirst GK: The quantitative determination of influenza virus and antibodies by means of red cell agglutination. J Exp Med 1942, 75:49-64.
• [12]Pedersen JC: Hemagglutination-inhibition test for avian influenza virus subtype identification and the detection and quantitation of serum antibodies to the avian Influenza virus. In Avian Influenza Virus. Edited by Spackman E. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2008:53-66.
• [13]Noah DL, Hill H, Hines D, White EL, Wolff MC: Qualification of the hemagglutination inhibition assay in support of pandemic influenza vaccine licensure. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2009, 16:558-566.
• [14]Kayali G, Setterquist SF, Capuano AW, Myers KP, Gill JS, Gray GC: Testing human sera for antibodies against avian influenza viruses: horse RBC hemagglutination inhibition vs. microneutralization assays. J Clin Virol 2008, 43:73-78.
• [15]Rowe T, Abernathy RA, Hu-Primmer J, Thompson WW, Lu X, Lim W, Fukuda K, Cox NJ, Katz JM: Detection of antibody to avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in human serum by using a combination of serologic assays. J Clin Microbiol 1999, 37:937-943.
• [16]Bachmann MF, Ecabert B, Kopf M: Influenza virus: a novel method to assess viral and neutralizing antibody titers in vitro. J Immunol Methods 1999, 225:105-111.
• [17]Louisirirotchanakul S, Lerdsamran H, Wiriyarat W, Sangsiriwut K, Chaichoune K, Pooruk P, Songserm T, Kitphati R, Sawanpanyalert P, Komoltri C, et al.: Erythrocyte binding preference of avian influenza H5N1 viruses. J Clin Microbiol 2007, 45:2284-2286.
• [18]Stephenson I, Wood JM, Nicholson KG, Charlett A, Zambon MC: Detection of anti-H5 responses in human sera by HI using horse erythrocytes following MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/Duck/Singapore/97 vaccine. Virus Res 2004, 103:91-95.
• [19]Stephenson I, Wood JM, Nicholson KG, Zambon MC: Sialic acid receptor specificity on erythrocytes affects detection of antibody to avian influenza haemagglutinin. J Med Virol 2003, 70:391-398.
• [20]Humberd J, Guan Y, Webster RG: Comparison of the replication of influenza A viruses in Chinese ring-necked pheasants and chukar partridges. J Virol 2006, 80:2151-2161.
• [21]Hulse-Post DJ, Sturm-Ramirez KM, Humberd J, Seiler P, Govorkova EA, Krauss S, Scholtissek C, Puthavathana P, Buranathai C, Nguyen TD, et al.: Role of domestic ducks in the propagation and biological evolution of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses in Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102:10682-10687.
• [22]Gilbert M, Xiao X, Pfeiffer DU, Epprecht M, Boles S, Czarnecki C, Chaitaweesub P, Kalpravidh W, Minh PQ, Otte MJ, et al.: Mapping H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza risk in Southeast Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:4769-4774.
• [23]Sturm-Ramirez KM, Hulse-Post DJ, Govorkova EA, Humberd J, Seiler P, Puthavathana P, Buranathai C, Nguyen TD, Chaisingh A, Long HT, et al.: Are ducks contributing to the endemicity of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus in Asia? J Virol 2005, 79:11269-11279.
• [24]Kida H, Yanagawa R, Matsuoka Y: Duck influenza lacking evidence of disease signs and immune response. Infect Immun 1980, 30:547-553.
• [25]Toth TE, Norcross NL: Precipitating and agglutinating activity in duck anti-soluble protein immune sera. Avian Dis 1981, 25:338-352.
• [26]Henning J, Henning K, Vu LT, Yulianto D, Meers J: The role of moving duck flocks in the spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) virus in Vietnam and Indonesia. Proceedings of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE) XII, Theme 2 - Investigation of determinants and distribution of disease: Avian influenza, Disease distribution & determinants: 9-14 August 2009, Durban, South Africa 2009, 30.
• [27]Henning J, Wibawa H, Morton J, Usman TB, Junaidi A, Meers J: Scavenging ducks and transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Java, Indonesia. Emerg Infect Dis 2010, 16:1244-1250.
• [28]OIE: Chapter 2.3.4. Avian Influenza (Version adopted in May 2009). Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals 2011 2011. http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/2.03.04_AI.pdf webcite.
• [29]WHO: WHO manual on animal influenza diagnosis and surveillance. 2002. http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/whocdscsrncs20025rev.pdf webcite.
• [30]Wibawa H, Henning J, Wong F, Selleck P, Junaidi A, Bingham J, Daniels P, Meers J: A molecular and antigenic survey of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus isolates from smallholder duck farms in Central Java, Indonesia during 2007–2008. Virol J 2011, 8:425. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Anonymous: Stata Users’s Guide Release 11. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2009:262-273.
• [32]Anonymous: Stata Users’s Guide Release 11. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2009:1420-1424.
• [33]Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H: Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. 2nd edition. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada: AVC Inc; 2009.
• [34]Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB: Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993, 46:423-429.
• [35]Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley; 2003.
• [36]Efron B, Tibshirani R: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
• [37]Lee J, Fung KP: Confidence interval of the kappa coefficient by bootstrap resampling. Psychiatry Res 1993, 49:97-98.
• [38]Landis JR, Koch GG: Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [39]Ito T, Suzuki Y, Mitnaul L, Vines A, Kida H, Kawaoka Y: Receptor specificity of influenza A viruses correlates with the agglutination of erythrocytes from different animal species. Virology 1997, 227:493-499.
• [40]Gerhard W, Mozdzanowska K, Furchner M, Washko G, Maiese K: Role of the B-cell response in recovery of mice from primary influenza virus infection. Immunol Rev 1997, 159:95-103.
• [41]Kuchipudi SV, Dunham SP, Nelli R, White GA, Coward VJ, Slomka MJ, Brown IH, Chang KC: Rapid death of duck cells infected with influenza: a potential mechanism for host resistance to H5N1. Immunol Cell Biol 2012, 90:116-123.
• [42]Barber MR, Aldridge JR Jr, Webster RG, Magor KE: Association of RIG-I with innate immunity of ducks to influenza. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107:5913-5918.
• [43]Greiner M, Gardner IA: Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000, 45:3-22.
• [44]Vach W: The dependence of Cohen's kappa on the prevalence does not matter. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:655-661.
• [45]Hoehler FK: Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:499-503.