Acute respiratory infection remains a global leading cause of death, with influenza accounting one of the most important causes of severe infections and deaths every year [1]. Globally, an estimated 1 million persons died from respiratory and cardiovascular conditions associated with influenza A/H1N1/2009 infections. Transmission patterns of influenza are attached with unique epidemiologic and demographic features such as environmental, economic, religious, cultural and social conditions [2]; weather conditions such as temperate and humidity; pre-existing immunity accounting for difference in the prevalence rates of specific antibodies [3]. Serum antibody to influenza can be used to identify past exposure and measure current immune status. Various laboratory methods applied to determining the host’s immune response include haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test, neutralization test (NT), microneutralization (MN) test, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [4]. Although both HI and NT tests serve as measures of antibody concentration in sera, they have important differences in how they are conducted and how they measure immunity. Haemagglutination inhibition and NT assays, despite their widespread usage, the difference in reliability between laboratories is a direct result of how they are been measured [5]. These assays assess the level of functional immunity to a virus in a similar manner, both using serial dilution of sera applied to a fixed amount of virus to determine at which titer of sera the virus is effectively inhibited [6], however, the difference is in the biological mechanism used as an indicator for inhibition [7]. The HI assay utilizes the natural process of viral hemagglutination, a process in which a lattice forms by binding of viruses to red blood cells; this process is blocked when sufficient antibody with affinity to the virus is present [8]. The NT assay, in contrast, measures cytopathic effects of the virus, the invading and killing of cells, through plaque formation [9]. Again, the antibodies in the sample serum are tested for their ability to block this activity. Results are expressed as reciprocal of the highest dilution at which virus infection is blocked. A more precise assessment of the total number of infected persons would require the large-scale use of techniques to specifically determine the presence and relative concentration of A/H1N1/2009 influenza virus antibodies in serum samples. Besides its obvious epidemiological significance, the availability of these techniques would also allow the rapid discernment of potentially immune subjects among those more susceptible to infection in a given population [5]. However, as a result of the somewhat time, labour intensive, specialized training, less availability of specific reagents needed for these techniques, hence, the assessment of specific baseline antibodies to A/H1N1/2009 influenza virus with an ELISA-based method for sero-epidemiological study among randomly-selected apparently healthy individuals. The immunoassay used for this study shows significant advantages over conventional MN and HI assays; (i) it does not require fresh chicken erythrocytes; (ii) it does not require virus manipulation and therefore does not require special infrastructure; and (iii) interpretation of results rests on absorbance readings, instead of subjective visual estimation of agglutination.
Read full abstract