EBV was discovered in 1964 by electron microscopy of suspension cultures of African Burkitt lymphoma cells (Epstein
EBV is an important agent that affects nearly all adults throughout the world (Kreuzer
EBV is intermittently shed from saliva. The main route of transmission is orally from person to person although transmission
In immunocompetent individuals, EBV infection is controlled by the humoral and cellular immune responses, in cooperation with the interferon system. EBV reactivation in immunocompetent individuals may not cause any specific symptoms. But in immunocompromised individuals such as solid organ or bone marrow recipients, and HIV infection, virus reactivation can cause serious complications (Jacobson and LaCasce, 2010).
Formerly, for the diagnosis of acute primary EBV infections, peripheral blood smear (atypical lymphocytes-Downey cells), monospot and Paul-Bunnell agglutination test could be used, but as these tests are not specific to the EBV infection and false negativity rates are high in children aged under 4 especially in Paul-Bunnell test (Horwitz
In this study, serum samples of pediatric patients who were suspected to have an EBV infection were sent to Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medicine of Faculty, Department of Medical Microbiology, and investigated by IFA, ELISA, Immunoblot and Real-time PCR. The performances of these tests were compared with the gold standard test IFA and their sensitivities and specificities were evaluated.
EBV infectious serology was evaluated in patient (n = 178) and control (n = 30) groups by ELISA and immunoblotting tests, and results were compared with IFA as the reference method. EBV DNA was searched in sera by real-time PCR to evaluate viremia.
EBV infection stages were determined by IFA reference method, according to the EBV diagnosis standards (Linde and Falk, 2007). In patient group, 26 (14.6%) seronegativity, 16 (9.0%) acute primary infection, 9 (5.1%) late primary infection, 127 (71.3%) past infection were determined by IFA. In control group, 25 (83.4%) past infection, 4 (13.3%) seronegativity and 1 (3.3%) late primary infection stages were determined.
EBV infection stages were also determined by ELISA and immunoblotting methods, and these results were compared with IFA results (Table I and Table II).
Comparison of stages determined by ELISA and IFA in patient group.
Comparison of stages determined by immunoblotting and IFA in patient group.
In patient group, ELISA and IFA concordance was as 100% for seronegativity, 100% for acute primary infection, 22.2% for late primary infection, 92.1% for past infection. Immunoblotting and IFA concordance was as 80.8% for seronegativity, 68.8% for acute primary infection, 55.6% for late primary infection, 86.6% for past infection. In control group, the concordance of ELISA and immunoblotting with IFA were as 100%.
When considering specific antibodies, the results obtained by ELISA and immunoblotting were compared with IFA results, and the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of methods were evaluated (Table III and IV).
Comparison of antibody results obtained by ELISA with IFA results in patient group.
Comparison of antibody results obtained by immunoblotting with IFA results in patient group.
The sensitivity of immunoblotting method was found similar with ELISA method for anti-VCA IgM, and was higher than ELISA for the other three antibodies, but the specificity was lower than ELISA for all four antibodies. Table V and Table VI show the PCR results and viral loads according to the infection stages, respectively. DNA was not detected in the control group. The sensitivity of real-time PCR in detecting viremia during acute primary infection is 56.25% (9/16), and the specificity is 97.89% (139/142).
Evaluation of real-time PCR results based on infectious stages by IFA, ELISA and immunblotting methods in patient group.
Distribution of real-time PCR positive results on the basis of stages according to different methods.
In immunocompetent individuals, the main aim to evaluate serological antibodies is to diagnose acute primary infection (Gärtner
In this study, we compared the results of different methods with gold standard IFA test. In our patient group, the ratio of acute primary infection stage was as 9.0%, and late primary infection consisted of 5.1% of patients. All of the acute primary infection patients (n:16) were also interpreted as acute primary infection by ELISA method. But six other patients were interpreted as acute primary infection by ELISA although five of them were late primary, and one was past infection by IFA. The compliance value of ELISA and IFA was as 100% for seronegativity and acute primary infection, and 92.1% for past infection, but this value was low for late primary infection. Only two of 9 late primary infections were interpreted correctly by ELISA. Five patients were interpreted as acute primary infection, and 2 were as past infection.
By ELISA, four specific antibodies are evaluated (anti VCA IgM, anti VCA IgG, anti EBNA IgG and anti EA IgG). When solely anti VCA IgG is positive, it is recommended to test anti VCA IgG avidity to distinguish late primary infection from past infection without anti EBNA. The avidity testing of VCA IgG may also help to resolve cases in which VCA IgM persists for a long term (Bauer, 2001). In our study, all of the patients with solely anti VCA IgG positivity (n = 9) had low avidity index values, therefore they were interpreted as late primary infection by ELISA. Two of them were interpreted as late primary infection, and seven were past infection by IFA. Four of these 9 patients were also solely positive for anti VCA IgG by IFA. They were interpreted according to their avidity results. In the literature, the presence of isolated anti VCA IgG profile occurs in 2–8% of immunocompetent patients tested for EBV (Klutts
As mentioned above, all of the acute primary infection cases were diagnosed correctly by ELISA. Kreuzer
When we compared immunoblotting stage results with IFA, we realized that the concordance rates were low. Five of 16 (31.2%) acute primary patients were evaluated as late primary infection. The ages of these patients were 3, 3, 5, 10, and 12. Three of these patients were positive by PCR (96.9, 5440, 6450 copies/ml respectively) and all of these five patients were diagnosed as acute primary infection by ELISA. Immunoblotting method in our study uses recombinant antigens (VCA p19, EBNA-1, p22, EA-D) and one native purified antigen by chromatography (VCA gp125). Recombinant EBV specific antigens are accepted to be superior to lysate antigens, because they are not influenced by potential anti-cellular antibodies (Bauer, 2001; Gärtner
In our study, with the use of anti-VCA IgG avidity, we defined late primary infection stage by ELISA and IFA. To make accurate comparisons, we defined stages compatible with late primary infection by evaluating the antibodies detected by immunoblotting. As it is reported in the literature, during convalescence, anti-VCA IgM antibodies decrease, while anti VCA IgG antibodies rise and persist for life. Between the third and sixth months, anti-VCA IgM antibodies disappear but anti-EBNA-1 IgG antibodies become detectable. Therefore, anti-VCA IgM, anti-VCA IgG and anti-EBNA IgG may be present simultaneously in late primary infection and reactivation (Nystad and Myrmel, 2007). We also evaluated the anti-EBNA-1 IgM to be able to make correct comments on stages of infections. It is reported as an indicator of recent primary infection, and it is positive for 2–4 months after primary infection. Although there are a few commercially available anti-EBNA-IgM ELISA kits, anti-EBNA IgM is not used in routine diagnosis of EBV infections. In our study, we could be able to evaluate anti-EBNA IgM by immunoblotting IgM strips. 26 patients and 1 individual of the control group were evaluated as late primary infection. 20 of them were positive for anti-VCA IgM, anti-VCA IgG and anti-EBNA IgG, and in 10 anti-EBNA IgM was positive. In 7 samples, anti-VCA IgM and anti-EBNA IgG were negative but anti-VCA IgG was positive. According to their ages and/or anti-EBNA IgM results they were evaluated as late primary infection. By immunoblotting, some of the results were difficult to interpret. In routine diagnosis additional tests should be performed to diagnose the correct stage. But in our study, we aimed to evaluate the sufficiency of the tests alone. Although immunoblotting is suggested as a confirmatory test (Hess, 2004), we had some serious problems especially when anti VCA IgM, IgG and anti-EBNA IgG were simultaneously or when only anti VCA IgG was positive. Maybe we should report these results as “not determined” but we evaluated them as “late primary infection” and this may be our limitation.
We also aimed to measure the agreement of different methods in detecting the specific antibodies correctly as well as the correct staging, and evaluated sensitivity and specificity values. To interpret the degree of agreement, the guidelines reported by Cohen and Viera were used: Kappa value between 0.01–0.20 slight agreement, 0.21–0.40 fair agreement, 0.41–0.60 moderate agreement, 0.61–0.80 substantial agreement, 0.81–0.99 almost perfect agreement (Cohen, 1960; Viera and Garrett, 2005). According to these criteria, ELISA method had substantial or almost perfect agreement values for anti VCA IgM, IgG and anti-EBNA IgG. But this value was very low for anti-EA IgG. Therefore, we suggest that in immunocompetent patients, it is appropriate and sufficient to evaluate the infection stage by these three antibodies but not anti-EA IgG. Likewise, the agreement value of anti-EA IgG of immunoblotting method was low as moderate agreement. As immunoblotting is recommended as a confirmatory method, this low value is disappointing.
In the literature, anti-EA IgG is reported positive in approximately 85% of patients with acute infection, but in some cases, it can still be positive for years after acute primary infection. During reactivation or nasopharyngeal carcinoma, high titers of anti-EA IgG are seen (de Paschale and Clerici, 2012). It is also reported that, IgG reactivity against EA can be seen in all phases of infection, although it is predominantly seen during lytic infection (Nystad and Myrmel, 2007). Since an increase in the titer of anti-EA IgG can be considered as a marker of reactivation, it is suggested to evaluate anti-EA IgG only if serial sampling is possible (De Paschale and Clerici, 2012). In a study by Altuglu
In addition to the comparison of the methods in evaluating individual parameters, sensitivity and specificity values were also compared. The sensitivity of these two methods was the same for anti VCA IgM, and immunoblotting had slightly high values for anti VCA IgG and anti EBNA IgG. But the sensitivity performance of immunoblotting was significantly better for anti EA IgG. When we considered the specificity values, immunoblotting method had lower values. Immunoblotting assays are considered to have high specificity for EBV serology but unfortunately we had lower values than ELISA, especially for anti EBNA IgG (false positive results; 15/53). This means that, anti EBNA negative acute primary infection serologic profiles could be diagnosed as past infection, according to the anti EBNA IgG positivity. The IFA method is labor-intensive and requires experience. To prevent or minimalize the false positive or negative results, the slides were evaluated by two different researchers, and confirmed by a specialist in this topic. Besides, to make accurate comparison and to eliminate the differences between manufacturers, we used ELISA, IFA and immunoblotting kits from the same manufacturer. The antigens used by IFA for anti-VCA antibodies were antigen expressing P3HR1 cells and, native gp125 and recombinant p19 antigen. The antigens used by ELISA and immunoblotting were similar. For anti-EBNA IgG and anti-EA, ELISA and immunoblotting used recombinant antigens, but IFA used cells expressing EA antigen and Raji cells expressing EBNA.
In the active phase of the infection, EBV DNA is present in plasma or serum samples. In addition to active infection, EBV DNA viremia is present in reactivation, EBV associated malignancies, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. Our study group consisted of pediatric patients; therefore the most common causes of the EBV serologic tests in routine practice were to diagnose the acute primary infection, and to exclude EBV infection in patients with lymphadenopathy. In our study, we detected EBV DNA in 9 of 16 acute primary infection patients. Therefore, we determined the sensitivity in active infection as 56.25%. EBV DNA was positive in 2 (viral loads were 6450 and 8730 copies/ml) of 9 late primary and 1 (viral load 92 copies/ml) of 127 past infection patients. The latter patient was a 3-year old child with classic triad of EBV infection as sore throat, cervical lymphadenopathy and fever. Interestingly, the stage determined by immunoblotting was as late primary infection with anti VCA IgM positivity. This finding made us think that whether ELISA and IFA methods could not detect the anti VCA IgM. But as IFA was considered as the gold standard test for the EBV infections, we suggested the anti-VCA IgM of immunoblotting as false positive. In routine practice, real time PCR would not be performed for this patient as it was considered as past infection. Detecting viremia by molecular methods is necessary for immunosuppressed individuals, as serological assays are insufficient due to their deficiencies in generating antibodies. Therefore, in immunosuppressed patients, detection of viral load by PCR is recommended (Hess, 2004). We suggest that the duration of viremia and the viral load may vary between patients, as we could not detect in some of acute primary patients but detected in late primary stage. Our positivity rate of EBV DNA in acute primary infection was lower than studies reported previously. Chan
In our study, we aimed to evaluate the performances of different diagnostic methods on determining the infection stages and detecting the specific antibodies in serum samples of patients with suspicious of EBV infections. But as a limitation of our study, we did not evaluate the anti-CMV IgM and IgG antibodies to exclude cross reactivation on anti VCA IgM positive samples.
In conclusion, IFA is the gold standard test for the diagnosis of EBV infections, but the most important disadvantages are the high cost and the requirement of experienced staff. The compliance of ELISA with IFA is high, and this method provides advantages in terms of ease of use as it is practical and can be automated. Although immunoblotting is recommended as a confirmatory test in EBV diagnosis, high false positivity rates should be kept in mind. Especially in immunocompromised patients that serological methods are insufficient, real-time PCR is recommended to detect viremia. The most suitable diagnostic method should be decided according to the demographic characteristics of patient groups, experience of the staff, financial facilities, working conditions of the laboratory, and when necessary the correct conclusion should be achieved using more than one diagnostic method as a test battery.