Comparative study of serological methods for the detection of antibodies to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus

A comparison was made of serological diagnostic methods used for the detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus. In the ''phase I'' PRRS test panel comparison, a panel of sera collected from 135 pigs of various ages, from North American herds with and without PRRS histories, were sent to 4 different laboratories and tested by an indirect immunofluorescent assay (IFA), an immunoperoxidase monolayer assay (IPMA) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA). In the ''phase II'' PRRS test panel comparison, a panel of 382 sera collected from pigs of various ages, PRRS histories, and from various locations in North America and France, were divided into 2 panels (A & B) and sent to 3 Canadian laboratories and tested by the IFA and iELISA. In the phase I comparison, agreement between the IFA of laboratory 4 and the iELISA and IPMA of laboratory 3 was excellent (kappa values of 95% and 98%, respectively). This contrasted with the poor agreement between these laboratories and the IFA results of laboratories 1 and 2 in the phase I trial. In the phase II comparison, the results demonstrated good agreement between various tests both within and between laboratories. The overall performance of the iELISA was superior in the combination of sensitivity (96.1%) and specificity (100%) relative to the reference classification of the serum samples and repeatability (kappa value 98%). The iELISA is technically superior to IFA and IPMA, time efficient, cost effective and suitable for testing of a large number of samples over a short period of time. Thus, the iELISA may be a better alternative to IFA or IPMA for routine detection of PRRS viral antibodies in swine sera.