Comparison of immunofluorescence and immunoperoxidase staining for identification of rubella virus isolates

To explore possible advantages which immunoperoxidase (IP) staining might have over immunofluorescence (IF) staining for identifying rubella virus isolates, direct comparative studies were done on the same coded clinical materials using the same rubella immune rabbit serum as the primary antiserum in both systems. The rubella immune rabbit serum and conjugated anti-rabbit immune globulins could be used more dilute in the IP system than in the IF system. Both IP and IF staining detected rubella antigen in all specimens which were positive by interference. IP staining also detected low levels of rubella antigen in a few additional specimens which had originally been positive for rubella virus, but which on retesting were negative by interference and IF staining. With second-cell-culture-passage material, IP and IF staining showed comparable specificity, and the few specimens which reacted nonspecifically generally did so in both systems. Cell cultures inoculated directly with urine specimens showed greater nonspecificity by IP than by IF, but this activity could be abolished by pretreatment with sodium azide and peroxide; other methods tried for inactivating endogenous peroxidase activity destroyed rubella antigen as well. The intensity of staining for positive specimens was comparable in the two systems. However, more antigen was demonstrable in both systems when BHK-21 cells were inoculated as a cell suspension and then permitted to grow into monolayers than when the same specimens were inoculated into preformed monolayers. IP staining was considered to be a highly satisfactory alternative to IF staining for identification of rubella virus isolates.