<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Problems of Virology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Problems of Virology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вопросы вирусологии</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">0507-4088</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2411-2097</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Central Research Institute for Epidemiology</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">12164</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Comparative Evaluation of Two Enzyme Immunoassays for Detection of Immunoglobulin G Antibodies to Mumps Virus</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Сравнительная оценка иммуноферментных тест-систем для определения антител класса G к вирусу эпидемического паротита</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2012-08-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>08</month><year>2012</year></pub-date><volume>57</volume><issue>4</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 57, NO4 (2012)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 57, №4 (2012)</issue-title><fpage>38</fpage><lpage>41</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2023-06-09"><day>09</day><month>06</month><year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2012, Atrasheuskaya A.V., Bukin E.K., Atrasheuskaya A.V., Ignatyev G.M.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2012, Отрашевская Е.В., Букин Е.К., Отрашевская А.В., Игнатьев Г.М.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2012</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Atrasheuskaya A.V., Bukin E.K., Atrasheuskaya A.V., Ignatyev G.M.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Отрашевская Е.В., Букин Е.К., Отрашевская А.В., Игнатьев Г.М.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://virusjour.crie.ru/jour/article/view/12164">https://virusjour.crie.ru/jour/article/view/12164</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Two enzyme immunoassays (ELISA) for mumps antibody detection using the Enzygnost (Germany) and Parotit-screen (Russia) were comparatively assayed using sera of randomly assigned 70 healthy young adult volunteers. The neutralization test (NT) was performed for all sera using mumps viruses (MVs) of the relevant strains Enders and Leningrad-3. The proportion of positive results was significantly higher with the Parotit-screen than with the Enzygnost (80% versus 52.9%, p &lt; 0.05). The proportion of the concordant results in both ELISAs was as 72.9% (50% for positive results and 22.9% for negative results). There was significantly better agreement between the Nt with MV strain Enders and Enzygnost (98.6%, r = 0.9, p &lt; 0.05) than between the NT with MV strain Leningrad-3 and Parotit-screen (77.1%, r = 0.6, p &lt; 0.05). It was concluded that the Enzygnost was apparently more specific than the Parotit-screen.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Проведено исследование сывороток 70 здоровых добровольцев на наличие специфических IgG с помощью двух коммерческих ИФА-тест-систем “Enzygnost Anti-Parotitis Virus ELIA/IgG” (Германия) и “Паротит-скрин” (Россия) и реакции нейтрализации (РН) со штаммами вируса паротита (ВП) Enders и Ленинград-3 (Л-3). Количество положительных результатов в системе “Паротит-Скрин” (80%) значительно превзошло количество положительных результатов в системе “Enzygnost” (52,9%) (p &lt; 0,05). Процент совпадений результатов использования двух ИФА-тест-систем - 72,9 (50% положительных результатов и 22,9% отрицательных результатов). Совпадение результатов и их корреляция были значительно лучше в паре “Enzygnost”/PH со штаммом Enders (98,6%, r = 0,9, p &lt; 0,05), чем в паре “Паротит-скрин”/РН со штаммом Л-3 (77,1%, r = 0,7, p &lt; 0,05). Последнее свидетельствует о том, что система “Enzygnost” значительно специфичнее системы “Паротит-скрин”.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>mumps</kwd><kwd>ELISA</kwd><kwd>NT</kwd><kwd>evaluation</kwd><kwd>correlation</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>паротит</kwd><kwd>иммуноферментный анализ</kwd><kwd>реакция нейтрализации</kwd><kwd>оценка</kwd><kwd>корреляция</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Михеева И. В., Лыткина И. Н. Эпидемиология и вакцинопрофилактика эпидемического паротита // Вакцинация. - 2003. -№ 1. - С. 5-6.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>Отрашевская Е. В., Букин Е. К., Красильников И. В., Игнатьев Г. М. Состояние специфического гуморального иммунитета после однократной иммунизации паротитной вакциной: данные трехлетнего наблюдения // Вопр. вирусол. - 2011. - № 3. - С. 22-25.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Allwinn R., Zeidler B., Steinhagen K. E. et al. Assessment of mumps virus-specific antibodies by different serological assays: which test correlates best with mumps immunity // Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. - 2011. - Vol. 30. - N 10. - P. 1223-1228.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Atrasheuskaya A. V., Neverov A. A., Rubin A. V., Ignatyev G. M. Horizontal transmission of the L-3 live attenuated mumps vaccine virus // Vaccine. - 2006. - Vol. 24. - P. 1530-1536.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Atrasheuskaya A. V., Blatun E. M., Kulak M. V. et al. Investigation of mumps vaccine failures in Minsk, Belarus // Vaccine. - 2007. - Vol. 25. - P. 4651-4658.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Atrasheuskaya A. V., Kulak M. V., Rubin S., Ignatyev G. M. Mumps vaccine failure investigation in Novosibirsk, Russia, 2002-2004 // Clin. Microbiol. Infect. - 2007. - Vol. 7. - P. 670-676.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Backhouse J. L., Gidding H. F., McIntyre P. B., Gilbert G. L. Evaluation of two enzyme immunoassays for detection of immunoglobulin G antibodies to mumps virus // Clin. Vaccine Immunol. - 2006. -Vol. 13. - P. 764-767.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Cristenson B., Böttiger M. Methods for screening the naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity to the mumps virus // Biogicals. - 1990. - Vol. 18. - P. 213-219.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Dayan G. H. Rubin S. Mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations; are available mumps vaccine effective enough to prevent outbreaks? // Clin. Infect. Dis. - 2008. - Vol. 47. - P. 1458-1467.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Hanna-Wakima R., Yasukawa L. L., Sung P. et al. Immune responses to mumps vaccine in adults who were vaccinated in child-hood // J. Infect. Dis. - 2008. N 12. - P. 1669-1675.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Mossong J., Putz L., Schneider F. Seroprevalence of measles, mumps and rubella antibodies in Luxemburg: results from a national crosssectional study // Epidemiol. Infect. - 2003. - Vol. 132. - P. 11-18.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Munsen Kh., Aboudy Y., Mendelson E., Green M. S., Cohen D. Prevalence of mumps antibodies in the Israeli population in relation to mumps vaccination policy and incidence of disease // Epidemiol. Infect. - 2008. - Vol. 136. - P. 688-693.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Norman G. R., Streiner D. L. Biostatistics. The bare essentials. - 2nd Ed. - London, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Pipkin P. A., Afzal M. A., Heath A. B. et al. Assay of humoral immunity to mumps virus // J. Virol. Meth. - 1999. - Vol. 79. - P. 219-225.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Rubin S., Mauldin J., Chumakov K. et al. Serological and phylogenetic evidence of monotypic immune responses to different mumps virus strains // Vaccine. - 2006. - Vol. 24. - P. 2662-2668.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Rubin S.A., Qi L., Audet S.A. et al. Antibody induced by immunization with the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine strain effectively neutralizes a heterologous wild-type mumps virus assiciated with a large outbreak // J. Infect. Dis. - 2008. - Vol. 198. - N 4. - P. 508-515.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Tisher A., Andrews N., Kafatos G. et al. Standardization of measles, mumps and rubella assays to enable comparisons of seroprevalence data across 21 European countries and Australia // Epidemiol. Infect. - 2007. - Vol. 135. - P. 787-797.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>WHO-recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable diseases // Vaccines and Biologicals. - 2003. - Vol. 1. - P. 18-21.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
