Emerging Infectious Diseases (Feb 2004)

Serologic and Molecular Biologic Methods for SARS-associated Coronavirus Infection, Taiwan

  • Ho-Sheng Wu,
  • Shu-Chun Chiu,
  • Tsan-Chang Tseng,
  • Szu-Fong Lin,
  • Jih-Hui Lin,
  • Yu-Fen Hsu,
  • Mei-Ching Wang,
  • Tsuey-Li Lin,
  • Wen-Zieh Yang,
  • Tian-Lin Ferng,
  • Kai-Hung Huang,
  • Li-Ching Hsu,
  • Li-Li Lee,
  • Jyh-Yuan Yang,
  • Hour-Young Chen,
  • Shun-Pi Su,
  • Shih-Yan Yang,
  • Ting-Hsiang Lin,
  • Ih-Jen Su

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1002.030731
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 2
pp. 304 – 310

Abstract

Read online

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has raised a global alert since March 2003. After its causative agent, SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV), was confirmed, laboratory methods, including virus isolation, reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and serologic methods, have been quickly developed. In this study, we evaluated four serologic tests ( neutralization test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], immunofluorescent assay [IFA], and immunochromatographic test [ICT]) for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV in sera of 537 probable SARS case-patients with correlation to the RT-PCR . With the neutralization test as a reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 98.2%, 98.7%, 98.7%, and 98.4% for ELISA; 99.1%, 87.8%, 88.1% and 99.1% for IFA; 33.6%, 98.2%, 95.7%, and 56.1% for ICT, respectively. We also compared the recombinant-based western blot with the whole virus–based IFA and ELISA; the data showed a high correlation between these methods, with an overall agreement of >90%. Our results provide a systematic analysis of serologic and molecular methods for evaluating SARS-CoV infection.

Keywords