Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T14:16:45.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specific IgG subclass antibody in rubella virus infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

H. I. J. Thomas  and
P. Morgan-Capner
H. I. J. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Preston Infirmary, Preston PR1 6PS
P. Morgan-Capner
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Preston Infirmary, Preston PR1 6PS
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A solid-phase antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed for the detection of rubella-specific IgG subclasses. For rubella-specific IgG1 and IgG3 sera were quantitated in arbitrary units (au) by comparison with standard curves. A concentration of 3 au was taken as that indicating positivity for specific IgG1 and specific IgG3. No sera reactive for specific IgG2 and IgG4 have been found, and thus the assay reagents were controlled by testing dilutions of a standard calibrant serum containing known concentrations of the specific IgG subclasses.

Of 105 unselected sera negative for rubella antibody by radial haemolysis (RH), two gave concentrations of specific IgG1 > 3 au and both were positive by rubella latex agglutination (LA). The sensitivity of the assay for specific IgG1 was confirmed by examining 25 selected sera negative by RH but reactive by LA. Twenty-one gave concentrations > 3 au. None of these 130 was positive for specific IgG3. All 63 sera containing > 15 international units rubella antibody by RH from cases of rubella in the remote past contained specific IgG1 and eight contained specific IgG3.

In 79 cases of primary rubella, specific IgG1 developed in all cases by day 8. Specific IgG3 became detectable in all cases except one by day 16. Serum taken on day 21 from one case was negative for specific IgG3 but the absence of later sera precluded further investigation. One case had become negative for specific IgG3 by day 56.

Sera from 24 cases of rubella reinfection were examined and all contained specific IgG1. In three cases of symptomatic reinfection, specific IgG3 was detectable in two but not in the remaining case. In 2 of the 21 cases of asymptomatic reinfection only a very early or a very late serum was available. Of the remaining 19 cases, 7 had detectable specific IgG3. However, only one of 9 sera collected 30–50 days after contact contained specific IgG3. Thus for the asymptomatic patient for whom other serological tests suggest a recent rubella infection, the failure to detect specific IgG3 in sequential sera collected after contact suggests reinfection rather than primary rubella. The detection of specific IgG3 did not correlate with the presence of specific IgM.

Sera collected 6–8 weeks after rubella vaccination had detectable specific IgG1 in 32 of 33 cases and specific IgG3 in 9 of 33. The remaining vaccinee was seronegative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 443 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Cradock-Watson, J. E., Ridehalgb, M. K. S., Anderson, M. J. & Pattison, J. R. (1981). Outcome of asymptomatic infection with rubella virus during pregnancy. Journal ofHygiene 87, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doerr, H. W., Fleischer, G. & Wiesman, M. (1984). Detection of rubella-specific antibodies in different immunoglobulin-(sub)classes by ELTSA. Abstract, 39th Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft, Hygiene and Microbiology.Google Scholar
Jefferis, R., Reimer, C. B., Skvaril, F., de Lange, G., Ling, N. R., Lowe, J., Walker, M. R., Phillips, D. J., Aloisio, C. H., Wells, T. W., Vaerman, J. P., Magnusson, C. G., Kubagawa, H, Cooper, M., Vartdal, F., Vandvik, B., Haaijman, J. J., Makela, O., Sarnesto, A., Lando, Z., Gergely, J., Rajnavölogyi, E., László, G., Radl, J. & Molinaro, G. A. (1985). Evaluation of monoclonal antibodies having specificity for human TgG sub-classes: results of an IUIS/WHO collaborative study. Immunology Letters 10, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J. B., Mortimer, P. P., Mortimer, P. R., Morgan-Capner, P., Shafi, M. S. & White, G. B. B. (1980). Rubella antibody measured by radial haemolysis. Characterization and performance of a simple screening method for use in diagnostic laboratories. Epidemiology and Infection 84, 213–222.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, M. (1987). Affinity and sub-class distribution of IgG-class antibodies following vaccination with a live rubella virus vaccine. Vaccine 5, 88–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linde, G. A. (1985). Subclass distribution of rubella virus-specific immunoglobulin G. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 21, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, L. E., Cradock-Watson, J. E. & Pollock, T. M. (1982). Consequences of confirmed maternal rubella at successive stages of pregnancy. Lancet ii, 781–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Capner, P. (1986). Does rubella reinfection matter? In Public Health Virology. 12 Reports (ed. Mortimer, P. P.). London: Public Health Laboratory Service.Google Scholar
Morgan-Capner, P., Burgess, C., Ireland, R. M. & Sharp, J. C. (1983). Clinically apparent rubella reinfection with a detectable rubella-specific IgM response. British Medical Journal 286, 1616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Capner, P., Hodgson, J., Sellwood, J. & Tippett, J. (1984). Clinically apparent rubella reinfection. Journal of Infection 9, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan-Capner, P., Hodgson, J., Hambling, M. H., Dulake, C., Coleman, T. J., Boswell, P. A., Watkins, R. P., Booth, J., Stern, H., Best, J. M. & Banatvala, J. E. (1985). Detection of rubella-specific IgM in subclinical rubella reinfection in pregnancy. Lancet i, 244–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, P. P., Tedder, R. S., Hambling, M. H., Shafi, M. S., Burkhardt, F. & Schilt, U. (1981). Antibody capture radioimmunoassay for anti-rubella IgM. Epidemiology and Infection 86, 139–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, P. P., Edwards, J. M. B., Porter, A. D., Tedder, R. S., Mace, J. E. & Hutchinson, A. (1981). Are many women immunized against rubella unnecessarily? Epidemiology and Infection 87, 131–138.Google ScholarPubMed
Sarnesto, A., Ranta, S., Väänänen, P. & Mäkelä, O. (1985). Proportions of Ig classes and subclasses in rubella antibodies. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 21, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skvaril, F. (1983). Human IgG subclasses in antiviral antibodies determined with monoclonal antibodies in ELTSA. In Immunoenzymatic Techniques (ed. Avrameas, S.), pp. 287–290. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sciences.Google Scholar
Skvaril, F. & Schilt, U. (1984). Characterization of the subclasses and light chain types of IgG antibodies to rubella. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 55, 671–676.Google ScholarPubMed
Stokes, A., Mims, C. A. & Grahame, R. (1986). Subclass distribution of IgG and IgA responses to rubella virus in man. Journal of Medical Microbiology 21, 283–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed