Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 23, 2026
Isolation and Quantification of Epstein-Barr Virus from the P3HR1 Cell Line
Published on: September 28, 2022
Enzyme immunoassay for antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen
D L Smalley1, C E Dunn, M C Hechinger
1Baptist Regional Laboratories, Memphis, TN.
An enzyme immunoassay that detects IgM and IgG antibodies to the nuclear antigen of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is evaluated. The EIA was compared with a rapid monoscreen (Immunoscan-IM) and an indirect fluorescent antibody procedure to determine the correlation of the new test with the current methodology. Among 73 patients tested for heterophilic antibody, 36 were positive; 25 of these had IgM antibodies to nuclear antigen. The sensitivity of the EIA compared to the mono screen was 69.4% and specificity was 97.3%. In comparison with fluorescence assays for IgG to the nuclear antigen, 94 patients were tested with 84 showing positivity by the fluorescent method. Among these, 80 were positive by EIA yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 95.2% and 90.0%, respectively. The EIA does not appear sensitive enough for replacement of the monoscreen but was a sensitive, cost-effective alternative to the indirect fluorescent antibody test.
An enzyme immunoassay that detects IgM and IgG antibodies to the nuclear antigen of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is evaluated. The EIA was compared with a rapid monoscreen (Immunoscan-IM) and an indirect fluorescent antibody procedure to determine the correlation of the new test with the current methodology. Among 73 patients tested for heterophilic antibody, 36 were positive; 25 of these had IgM antibodies to nuclear antigen. The sensitivity of the EIA compared to the mono screen was 69.4% and specificity was 97.3%. In comparison with fluorescence assays for IgG to the nuclear antigen, 94 patients were tested with 84 showing positivity by the fluorescent method. Among these, 80 were positive by EIA yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 95.2% and 90.0%, respectively. The EIA does not appear sensitive enough for replacement of the monoscreen but was a sensitive, cost-effective alternative to the indirect fluorescent antibody test.
More Related Videos
06:15Characterization of Thymus-dependent and Thymus-independent Immunoglobulin Isotype Responses in Mice Using Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay
Published on: September 7, 2018
08:28Validated Immunochemical Assay for Comprehensive Determination of the Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Released from and Bound to Cells
Published on: May 9, 2025
