Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 13;4(2):e00017-19.
doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00017-19.

Evaluation of the Serologic Cross-Reactivity between Transmissible Gastroenteritis Coronavirus and Porcine Respiratory Coronavirus Using Commercial Blocking Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Kits

Affiliations

Evaluation of the Serologic Cross-Reactivity between Transmissible Gastroenteritis Coronavirus and Porcine Respiratory Coronavirus Using Commercial Blocking Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Kits

Ronaldo Magtoto et al. mSphere. .

Abstract

This study compared the performances of three commercial transmissible gastroenteritis virus/porcine respiratory coronavirus (TGEV/PRCV) blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using serum samples (n = 528) collected over a 49-day observation period from pigs inoculated with TGEV strain Purdue (n = 12), TGEV strain Miller (n = 12), PRCV (n = 12), or with virus-free culture medium (n = 12). ELISA results were evaluated both with "suspect" results interpreted as positive and then as negative. All commercial kits showed excellent diagnostic specificity (99 to 100%) when testing samples from pigs inoculated with virus-free culture medium. However, analyses revealed differences between the kits in diagnostic sensitivity (percent TGEV- or PRCV-seropositive pigs), and all kits showed significant (P < 0.05) cross-reactivity between TGEV and PRCV serum antibodies, particularly during early stages of the infections. Serologic cross-reactivity between TGEV and PRCV seemed to be TGEV strain dependent, with a higher percentage of PRCV-false-positive results for pigs inoculated with TGEV Purdue than for TGEV Miller. Moreover, the overall proportion of false positives was higher when suspect results were interpreted as positive, regardless of the ELISA kit evaluated.IMPORTANCE Current measures to prevent TGEV from entering a naive herd include quarantine and testing for TGEV-seronegative animals. However, TGEV serology is complicated due to the cross-reactivity with PRCV, which circulates subclinically in most swine herds worldwide. Conventional serological tests cannot distinguish between TGEV and PRCV antibodies; however, blocking ELISAs using antigen containing a large deletion in the amino terminus of the PRCV S protein permit differentiation of PRCV and TGEV antibodies. Several commercial TGEV/PRCV blocking ELISAs are available, but performance comparisons have not been reported in recent research. This study demonstrates that the serologic cross-reactivity between TGEV and PRCV affects the accuracy of commercial blocking ELISAs. Individual test results must be interpreted with caution, particularly in the event of suspect results. Therefore, commercial TGEV/PRCV blocking ELISAs should only be applied on a herd basis.

Keywords: ELISA; antibody; cross-reactivity; porcine respiratory coronavirus; serum; swine; transmissible gastroenteritis virus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Detection of transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) in pen-based feces and oral fluid samples by TGEV spike (S) and TGEV/PRCV nucleocapsid (N) gene-specific rRT-PCRs, as follows: S gene-specific PCR results in feces samples (A), S gene-specific PCR results in oral fluid samples (B), N gene-specific PCR results in feces samples (C), and N gene-specific PCR results in oral fluid samples (D). Results presented as mean adjusted quantification cycle (CT) (35 – sample CT) of positive samples.
FIG 2
FIG 2
TGEV antibody detection rate (%) of the 3 commercial TGEV/PRCV blocking ELISA kits evaluated in this study, Swinecheck TGEV/PRCV Recombinant (Biovet, Canada) (A, D, and G), INgezim Corona Diferencial (Ingenasa, Spain) (B, E, and H), and Svanovir TGEV/PRCV-Ab (Svanova, Sweden) (C, F, and I). Results are presented considering suspect results to be positive (red bars) or negative (green bars).
FIG 3
FIG 3
Porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) antibody detection rate (%) of the 3 commercial TGEV/PRCV blocking ELISA kits evaluated in this study, Swinecheck TGEV/PRCV Recombinant (Biovet, Canada) (A, D, and G), INgezim Corona Diferencial (Ingenasa, Spain) (B, E, and H), and Svanovir TGEV/PRCV-Ab (Svanova, Sweden) (C, F, and I). Results are presented considering suspect results to be positive (red bars) or negative (green bars).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Doyle LP, Hutchings LM. 1946. A transmissible gastroenteritis in pigs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 108:257–259. - PubMed
    1. Enjuanes L, Van der Zeijst BAM. 1995. Molecular basis of transmissible gastroenteritis virus epidemiology, 337–376. In Siddell SG. (ed), The Coronaviridae. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
    1. Sestak K, Saif LJ. 2008. Porcine coronaviruses In Morilla A, Yoon KJ, Zimmerman JJ (ed), Trends in emerging viral infections of swine. Iowa State Press, Ames, IA.
    1. Pensaert M, Callebaut P, Vergote J. 1986. Isolation of a porcine respiratory, non-enteric coronavirus related to transmissible gastroenteritis. Vet Q 8:257–261. doi:10.1080/01652176.1986.9694050. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pensaert MB, Cox E. 1989. Porcine respiratory coronavirus related to transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Agri-Practice 10:17.

Publication types

MeSH terms

-