Accuracy of traditional and novel serology tests for predicting cross-protection in foot-and-mouth disease vaccinated cattle

Highlights • We compared the accuracy of different serological methods to predict cross-protection. • Podal generalization results were used as gold standard. • We computed sensitivity, specificity and receiving operating characteristics curve. • Sensitivity of individual tests was limited and r1 va...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Vaccine 2014-01, Vol.32 (4), p.433-436
Main Authors: Brito, Bárbara Patricia, Perez, Andrés Maximiliano, Capozzo, Alejandra Victoria
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Allergy and Immunology
Animals
Antibodies, Viral - blood
Antibody Affinity
Antibody Formation
Antigens
Applied microbiology
Biological and medical sciences
Cattle
Cattle Diseases - prevention & control
Confidence intervals
Cross Protection
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - veterinary
Foot & mouth disease
Foot-and-mouth disease
Foot-and-Mouth Disease - prevention & control
Foot-and-mouth disease virus
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus - immunology
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Immunoglobulin G - blood
Microbiology
Neutralization
Neutralization Tests - veterinary
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serology
Studies
Vaccine matching
Vaccines
Vaccines, antisera, therapeutical immunoglobulins and monoclonal antibodies (general aspects)
Viral Vaccines - administration & dosage
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Highlights • We compared the accuracy of different serological methods to predict cross-protection. • Podal generalization results were used as gold standard. • We computed sensitivity, specificity and receiving operating characteristics curve. • Sensitivity of individual tests was limited and r1 value was inaccurate. • Tests should be used in combination to produce accurate estimates of protection.
ISSN:0264-410X
1873-2518
DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.007