Sensitivity comparison for detection of respiratory bovine coronaviruses in nasal samples from feedlot cattle by ELISA and isolation with the G cloneof HRT-18 cells

Citation
Mr. Da Silva et al., Sensitivity comparison for detection of respiratory bovine coronaviruses in nasal samples from feedlot cattle by ELISA and isolation with the G cloneof HRT-18 cells, J VET D INV, 11(1), 1999, pp. 15-19
Citations number
14
Categorie Soggetti
Veterinary Medicine/Animal Health
Journal title
JOURNAL OF VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC INVESTIGATION
ISSN journal
10406387 → ACNP
Volume
11
Issue
1
Year of publication
1999
Pages
15 - 19
Database
ISI
SICI code
1040-6387(199901)11:1<15:SCFDOR>2.0.ZU;2-D
Abstract
A monoclonal antibody-based capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELIS A) was developed to detect respiratory bovine coronavirus (RBCV) antigens i n nasal swabs collected from cattle showing signs of respiratory tract dise ase following shipping. These samples had been previously tested for RBCV b y inoculation of G clone cultures of human rectal tumor cells (HRT-18G) and for bovine herpes virus 1, parainfluenza virus 3, bovine adenovirus, bovin e respiratory syncytial virus, and bovine viral diarrhea virus on other spe cifically permissive cell cultures. RBCV has not previously been recognized as an important etiological factor in the bovine respiratory disease compl ex of feedlot cattle. Thirty of 100 samples tested positive for RBCV antige n by capture ELISA in contrast to 38 of 100 samples that yielded RBCV isola tes in G clone cells. Samples yielding other bovine respiratory viruses in the absence of RBCV were negative in the capture ELISA, which was based on the use of a single monoclonal antibody that recognizes one RBCV epitope on the S glycoprotein with the broadest reactivity with different strains of RBCV tested. Some RBCV strains may not be detected by this ELISA, which may account for the higher percentage of RBCV-infected cattle detected by RBCV isolation. However, the ELISA was simple to perform, sensitive, and specif ic and was more rapid than virus isolation. This assay will be useful for p rocessing large numbers of field samples in future epidemiologic and diagno stic studies of RBCV infections of cattle.