Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Short report
  • Open Access

Combination of ELISA screening and seroneutralisation tests to expedite Zika virus seroprevalence studies

  • 1Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 3,
  • 2,
  • 1, 4,
  • 1,
  • 1, 5,
  • 1, 5,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1, 6
Virology Journal201815:192

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1105-5

  • Received: 19 April 2018
  • Accepted: 4 December 2018
  • Published:

The Correction to this article has been published in Virology Journal 2019 16:12

Abstract

Here we propose a strategy allowing implementing efficient and practicable large-scale seroepidemiological studies for Zika Virus (ZIKV). It combines screening by a commercial NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA, and confirmation by a cytopathic effect-based virus neutralization test (CPE-based VNT). In post-epidemic samples from Martinique Island blood donors (a population with a dengue seroprevalence above 90%), this strategy allowed reaching specificity and sensitivity values over 98%. The CPE-based VNT consists of recording CPE directly under the optical microscope, which is easy to identify with ZIKV strain H/PF/2013 at day 5 pi. Overall, considered that CPE-based VNT is cost effective and widely automatable, the NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA+CPE-based VNT combination strategy represents a convenient tool to expedite ZIKV seroprevalence studies.

Keywords

  • Zika virus
  • Seroepidemiology
  • Virus neutralization test

Introduction

Zika virus (ZIKV) is an enveloped RNA virus (family Flaviviridae, genus Flavivirus) [1] of African origin, first identified as the aetiological agent of mild arboviral fever [2] and mainly transmitted to human by the bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes [3]. Beginning in Yap Island (in 2007), ZIKV has been responsible for large outbreaks in French Polynesia and other Pacific Islands (2013–2015), then in South America and the Caribbean’s (from 2014 to 2015) [4]. Recently, intra-uterine [5] and sexual routes of transmission have been identified [6] and severe neurological presentations have been reported in adults (myelitis, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome) [7] and in foetus (including microcephaly) [8].

Due to frequent asymptomatic infections (ranging between 29 to 82% in different populations) [9], the survey of ZIKV clinically suspected cases is poorly adapted to estimate the attack rate during ZIKV outbreaks. This information can be provided by seroprevalence studies [10]. However, antigenic cross-reactivity between ZIKV and other flaviviruses (particularly dengue virus) makes seroprevalence studies challenging and requires wide use of seroneutralization assays [11].

We implemented a strategy aiming at facilitating ZIKV seroprevalence studies. It relies on primary testing using an ELISA assay to allow convenient screening of large series of samples, followed by a virus neutralization test (VNT) for confirmation of equivocal and positive ELISA results. For VNT, we chose a format usable for large series, combining a 96-well culture format and a simple cytopathic effect (CPE) based readout.

Here, we describe the performances of our testing strategy [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation]. We first evaluated our VNT versus classical Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) and then studied the sensitivity and specificity of the [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] strategy in blood donors from Martinique Island (i.e. in a population heavily exposed to dengue infection) [12], before the arrival of ZIKV, and after the ZIKV outbreak.

Methods

Serum samples

In order to compare VNT and PRNT, we used a panel of sera from blood donors of different origins: 90 from Martinique Island and 10 from Guadeloupe Island (all collected after the 2015–2016 outbreak due to ZIKV Asian genotype); 7 from Cameroon (where low ZIKV seropositivity [13] is presumably linked with the circulation of ZIKV African genotype); 35 from Metropolitan France (where no ZIKV or DENV circulation has been reported). For the performance testing of ELISA+VNT combination strategy, a total of 592 serum specimens collected from Martinique Island (collected before and after the 2015–2016 ZIKV outbreak) were included. A total of 13 serum specimens collected from laboratory staff at least one year after vaccination against several flaviviruses, including Yellow Fever, Japanese Encephalitis and Tick-Borne Encephalitis virus, were included to test the cross reactivity of CPE-based VNT. The consent of the each participant was taken prior to any laboratory testing.

NS1 protein-based Zika IgG EUROIMMUN ELISA

NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA was performed for all samples according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Semiquantitative ratios were calculated and specimens with a ratio value < 0.8 were considered as IgG negative; those with a ratio ≥ 1.1 were considered as positive and those with a ratio ≥ 0.8 to < 1.1 were recorded as equivocal according to the Euroimmun recommendations.

Virus neutralisation test (VNT)

VNT was carried out with H/PF/2013 strain of the ZIKV in 96-well plates containing confluent Vero cells (ATCC CCL-81). H/PF/2013 strain of the ZIKV was selected as this strain gives clear CPE on Vero cells. We used 6 dilutions of each heat inactivated serum (1:10 to 1:320 –corresponding to final testing dilutions 1:20 to 1:640, see below), allowing testing 16 samples or controls per plate. All the serum dilutions and virus additions were done with the automated system (Eppendorf EpMotion 5075). In each VNT, a strong, assured positive control serum from French National Reference Centre for Arboviruses was used (PRNT90 titre: 2560). Sera were mixed vol/vol with 100 TCID50/reaction of ZIKV and incubated 1 h at 37 °C. Then the serum+virus mixture was transferred onto the confluent cell monolayer in duplicate. Two possible readout strategies were evaluated: CPE-based VNT and PCR-based VNT. CPE-based VNT relied on CPE observation directly with light microscopy at day 5 pi. After the 5 days incubation period, gross cytopathic effect can be observed on Vero cells with H/PF/2013 strain of ZIKV. As seen in the Additional File 1, after the incubation period, distinguishing the presence/absence of viral cytophatic effect caused by H/PF/2013 strain of ZIKV is straightforward and easily readable under light microscope. Dilutions of serum associated with CPE were considered as negative, while the absence of CPE indicated a complete neutralisation of ZIKV inoculum (positive result). Consequently, Virus Neutralisation Titre referred to VNT100 and is described as the highest dilution of serum that neutralized virus growth. PCR-based VNT relied on RNA extraction from culture supernatants at day 3 pi and subsequent ZIKV qRT-PCR detection. For the qRT-PCR, ThermoFisher Scientific Express One-Step Superscript qRT-PCR kit with primers 5’-GRGCYCGGCCAATCAG-3′ & 5’-AARGACGGGAGRTCCATTGTG-3′ and the probe FAM-CGCCACCAAGATGA-MGB were used [14]. After the qRT-PCR, the viral load in each serum dilution and the positive control were assessed. As for PCR-based VNT, the presence/absence of viral replication was recorded. All sample dilutions associated with a viral load superior to that of our positive control sample were considered as negative while a viral load inferior or equal to that of our positive control sample was the hallmark of a positive dilution. Consequently, both PCR- and CPE-based VNT were based on the presence or complete absence of virus growth (VNT100). For both tests, serum specimens with a titre ≥40 were considered positive according to the recommendations of the French National Reference Centre for Arboviruses [10].

Plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT)

PRNT was adapted from previously described protocols [15, 16]. It was carried out with H/PF/2013 strain (60 PFU/reaction corresponding to ~ 86 TCID/reaction) in 6 well plates containing confluent Vero cell monolayer and 6 dilutions of each serum (1:5 to 1:160 –corresponding to final testing dilutions 1:10 to 1:320, see below). After one-hour incubation at 37 °C, the vol/vol serum+virus mixture was transferred onto confluent Vero cells monolayer in 6 well plates. Following incubation, inoculums were removed and cell monolayers were immediately covered with carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)/DMEM overlay. Plaques were counted at day 5 pi. Serum specimens with 90% (PRNT90) or 50% (PRNT50) reduction of the number of plaques at titres ≥10 were recorded as positive according to the recommendation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [17, 18]. (Additional file 2 shows image of plaque of PRNT at day 5 pi).

Results & discussion

Validation of the virus neutralisation test (VNT)

In order to estimate the analytical specificity and sensitivity of the VNT for ZIKV, VNT results of the panel were compared with the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) which is considered to be the “gold standard technique”.

Comparison of VNT and PRNT results

The same results (positive/negative) were obtained using CPE- and PCR-based VNTs. Titres were also highly correlated (Fig. 1). Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and cost effectiveness, CPE-based VNT was used in the subsequent steps of our study. For PCR and CPE-based VNT, the quality of the assay was determined by calculating the Zˈ factor. For both inter-well and inter-experiment, Zˈ factor was 1 which indicated that the variation between duplicates and experiments is minimum.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Virus Neutralization Titre (VNT100) comparison of PCR-based and Cytopathic Effect (CPE)-based Virus Neutralization Test (VNT). VNT100 were described in log10. Titres in the axes were described as antilogs. Mean values of CPE-based VNT titres corresponding to each PCR-based VNT titre are shown as red stars. Equation of the linear regression curve and R2 value indicate that titres from the two methods used are correlated

For VNT, we tested threshold titres at 20, 40, and 80. As expected, a threshold at 20 resulted in a decrease of the specificity and a threshold at 80 resulted in a decrease of sensitivity but also in 100% specificity (Additional files 3 and 4). Altogether, the threshold at 40 represented a good compromise. For PRNT, titres ≥10 were recorded as positive according to the recommendation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [17, 18]. Additionally, the comparison of the results obtained using titres ≥10 or ≥ 20 for both PRNT50 and PRNT90, confirmed that PRNT90 with a titre ≥10 was associated with a higher sensitivity and specificity in VNT (98.1% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity) (Additional file 5).

When CPE-based VNT was compared with PRNT, the best correlation was obtained with PRNT90 (R2 was 0.83 with PRNT90 and 0.78 with PRNT50) (Additional files 6 and 7). Sensitivity and specificity of CPE-based VNT were 98.1 and 98.8% respectively, with reference to PRNT90 (Table 1).
Table 1

Comparison of VNT and PRNT assays for a panel of 142 samples

 

PRNT50

PRNT90

VNT

Positive (titre≥10)

Negative (titre< 10)

Positive (titre≥10)

Negative (titre< 10)

Positive  (titre≥40)

51

1

51

1

Negative (titre<40)

9

81

1

89

Sensitivity of VNT

(95% CI)

85% (51/60)

(72.9–92.4%)

98.1% (51/52)

(88.4–99.9%)

Specificity of VNT

(95% CI)

98.7% (81/82)

(92.4–99.9%)

98.8% (89/90)

(93.1–99.9%)

Cytopathic Effect (CPE) based Virus Neutralization Test (VNT) was compared with Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test with either 50% or 90% End-Point Reduction (PRNT50 or PRNT90, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the CPE-based VNT were calculated with reference to PRNT50 or PRNT90 used as a gold standard.

When the sensitivity and specificity of CPE-based VNT was compared in Dengue ELISA negative and Dengue ELISA positive group, similar sensitivity and specificity was observed (100 and 98% of sensitivity, 100 and 97.7% of specificity, respectively) (Additional file 8). Also it was found that the sensitivity and specificity of CPE-based VNT is higher in sera with strong ZIKV seropositivity (97.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity in sera with a titre ≥160 and 94.4% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity in sera with titre 40–80) (Additional file 9).

VNT in individuals with vaccine flaviviral immunisation

To better evaluate the extent of cross-reactivity of VNT in case of previous immunisation against various flaviviruses, we tested a total of 13 serum specimens collected from laboratory staff immunized against different flaviviruses at least 1 year ago prior to serum collection. Three had received Yellow fever vaccine only; five Yellow fever and Tick Born Encephalitis vaccines; one Yellow fever and Japanese Encephalitis vaccines; four Yellow fever, Tick Born Encephalitis and Japanese Encephalitis vaccines. None of the samples provided ZIKV CPE-based VNT positive result, highlighting the robustness of the test specificity.

Performance of the [ELISA screening + VNT confirmation] strategy versus systematic VNT

The performance of the combined [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] strategy was evaluated in blood donors from Martinique Island. This choice was justified by the fact that (i) we knew that this population had been heavily exposed to the circulation of ZIKV in 2015–2016 [10], (ii) we also knew that seroprevalence of dengue is ~ 90% in this population [12], (iii) we had samples collected before the arrival of ZIKV (9–10 September 2013) and 6 months after the end of the outbreak (25 January-14 February 2017). Accordingly, all samples were tested using both the ELISA (NS1 protein-based Zika IgG EUROIMMUN assay, Lübeck, Germany) and the CPE-based VNT, and results of the [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] strategy were compared with those obtained using VNT as a first line test.

Specificity study (pre-epidemic cohort)

The pre-epidemic study was conducted with 144 sera collected before the ZIKV outbreak in Martinique Island: 142 were VNT negative and 2 were VNT positive (titres 40 and 80; samples also positive with PRNT90 and PRNT50). These positive results might be explained either by cross reactivity with another flavivirus (most probably dengue), or by an actual ZIKV infection acquired outside Martinique Island. Whatever the explanation, this result indicates that the absolute specificity of both VNT and PRNT tests is at least 98.6%.

The NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA test was positive (ratio ≥ 1.1) for 55 specimens (38.2%) of which 2 (1.4%) were confirmed by VNT (and correspond to those described in the previous paragraph). It was equivocal (0.8 ≤ ratio < 1.1) for 8 samples and negative in 81 samples (all negative in VNT) (Table 2). Accordingly, the specificity of the [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] strategy was identical to that of the VNT test alone (≥98.6%). The specificity of the NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA alone was 62.7% (89/142).
Table 2

ELISA and VNT results in pre- and post-epidemic Martinique samples

 

ELISA positive

ELISA equivocal

ELISA negative

VNT positive

VNT negative

VNT positive

VNT negative

VNT positive

VNT negative

Pre-epidemic study (n = 144)

2

53

0

8

0

81

Post-epidemic study (n = 448)

229

49

8

16

5

141

Blood donations were tested using the NS1 protein-based Zika IgG EUROIMMUN ELISA, (Lübeck, Germany) and the CPE-based VNT.

Sensitivity study (post-epidemic cohort)

448 blood specimens collected after the ZIKV outbreak were tested with the same strategy as described above: 206 were VNT negative and 242 were VNT positive.

The anti-ZIKV IgG ELISA test was positive for 237 specimens (62.05%) and 229 of them (51.1% of the total samples) were confirmed by VNT. It was equivocal for 24 samples, of which 8 (1.7%) were positive by CPE-based VNT, and negative for 146 samples of which 5 (1.12%) were positive by CPE-based VNT (Table 2). Accordingly, in the post-epidemic cohort, the strategy combining [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] had a sensitivity of 98% (237 in 242 positives detected using VNT as a first line assay).

Conclusion

In this study we proposed a strategy for Zika seroepidemiological studies, which comprises a first line screening with anti-ZIKV IgG ELISA followed by a confirmation of non-negative samples by CPE-based VNT.

We confirmed the limited specificity of the NS1 protein-based Zika IgG EUROIMMUN ELISA (62.7%) in sera collected before the ZIKV outbreak in Martinique Island where the Dengue is prevalent, presumably due to the cross-reactive ZIKV and DENV antibodies [19, 20]. Our findings are in accordance with a recent report which detected low specificity (45%) of NS1 protein-based Zika IgG ELISA in sera of blood donor collected before the ZIKV outbreak in Brazil [21]. This result points out the importance of confirmation of the NS1 protein-based Zika IgG EUROIMMUN ELISA with neutralisation assays especially in dengue endemic areas.

This [ELISA screening+VNT confirmation] strategy was associated with sensitivity and specificity values around 98%, when tested in a population of blood donors of Martinique Island in which dengue seroprevalence is over 90%. Until now, various neutralisation assays for ZIKV with different end-point reading strategies have been proposed as an alternative to PRNT, such as the usage of viability test with the 3-[4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl]-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide-(MTT) [22], image based fluorescent neutralisation tests [23], end-point assessment with real time PCR [24], or usage of luciferase ZIKV in neutralisation [25]. However, these tests are dependent on the usage of RNA extraction and qRT-PCR, or fluorescence or luminescence plate reader, which increase the global cost of the assays. Nevertheless, CPE-based VNT only requires the usage of a ZIKV strain that gives clear CPE.

In here, we described a cost effective methodology for seroepidemiological studies. This methodology was not designed or intended for individual diagnosis. It represents a convenient, rapid and cost-effective method to process large series with the aim of producing a reliable picture of the epidemiological situation as previously demonstrated in Martinique Island, Cameroon and Bolivia [10, 13, 26].

Notes

Abbreviations

CPE: 

Cytopathic effect

ELISA: 

The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Pi: 

Post-infection

PFU: 

Plaque Forming Unit

PRNT: 

Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test

TCID: 

Tissue Culture Infective Dose

VNT: 

Virus Neutralization Test

ZIKV: 

Zika Virus

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Christine Isnard for technical assistance

Funding

This work was partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance Grant Agreement no. 734548 and the European Virus Archive EVAg; European Union- Horizon 2020 programme under grant agreement no. 653316.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Authors’ contributions

EN and MS carried out the experiments; EN, SP, and XL, PG wrote the manuscript; XL and PG supervised the project; BG, GG, and CP obtained samples; BP, LN, JFD,YR, and ADP gave conceptual advice. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Only volunteer blood donors were included. Prior to serum collection, signed informed consent of the each blood donors were taken and blood donors were informed that samples might be used in epidemiological studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Unité des Virus Émergents (UVE: Aix-Marseille Univ – IRD 190 – Inserm 1207 – IHU Méditerranée Infection), Marseille, France
(2)
Virología II, Centro Nacional de Enfermedades Tropicales (CENETROP), Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia
(3)
Institute of Virology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
(4)
Centre Pasteur du Cameroun, Yaoundé, Cameroon
(5)
National Reference Centre for Arboviruses, French Armed Forces Biomedical Research Institute, Marseille, France
(6)
Laboratoire de Virologie, Établissement Français du Sang Alpes Méditerranée (EFS), Marseille, France

References

  1. Wang A, Thurmond S, Islas L, Hui K, Hai R. Zika virus genome biology and molecular pathogenesis. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2017;6 e13–e13.Google Scholar
  2. Kikuti M, Tauro LB, Moreira PSS, et al. Diagnostic performance of commercial IgM and IgG enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISAs) for diagnosis of Zika virus infection. Virol J. 2018;15(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1015-6.
  3. Chouin-Carneiro T, et al. Differential susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from the Americas to Zika virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004543.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Musso D, Gubler DJ. Zika Virus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29:487–524.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Besnard M, Lastère S, Teissier A, Cao-Lormeau V, Musso D. Evidence of perinatal transmission of Zika virus, French Polynesia, December 2013 and February 2014. Eurosurveillance. 2014;19:20751.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Foy BD, et al. Probable non-vector-borne transmission of Zika virus, Colorado, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:880–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Muñoz L, Barreras P, Pardo C. Zika virus–associated neurological disease in the adult: Guillain–Barré syndrome, encephalitis, and myelitis. Semin Reprod Med. 2016;34:273–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. De Araújo TVB, et al. Association between microcephaly, Zika virus infection, and other risk factors in Brazil: final report of a case-control study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:328–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Haby MM, Pinart M, Elias V, Reveiz L. Systematic reviews Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review. Bull World Heal Organ. 2018;96:402–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallian P, et al. Zika virus in asymptomatic blood donors in Martinique. Blood. 2017;129:263–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Priyamvada L, Hudson W, Ahmed R, Wrammert J. Humoral cross-reactivity between Zika and dengue viruses: implications for protection and pathology. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2017;6:e33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. L ‘azou M, et al. Dengue Seroprevalence in the French West Indies: a prospective study in adult blood donors. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92:1137–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Gake B, et al. Low seroprevalence of Zika virus in Cameroonian blood donors. Brazilian J Infect Dis. 2017;21:481–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Touret, F. et al. Live Zika virus chimeric vaccine candidate based on a yellow fever 17-D attenuated backbone. bioRxiv 272625 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1101/272625.
  15. Holdcroft, T. Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals Guidelines for plaque reduction neutralization testing of human antibodies to dengue viruses. (2007). at <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69687/who_ivb_07.07_eng.pdf;jsessionid=DE076FD831D9AC0BC8BAD523E5D3080E?sequence=1>.
  16. Agbulos DS, Barelli L, Giordano B V., Hunter FF. Zika Virus: Quantification, Propagation, Detection, and Storage. In: Current Protocols in Microbiology. Vol 43. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016:15D.4.1-15D.4.16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpmc.19.
  17. Updated Guidance for US Laboratories Testing for Zika Virus Infection. (2017). at <http://www.cdc.gov/zika/laboratories.>.
  18. Shan C, et al. Evaluation of a novel reporter virus neutralization test for serological diagnosis of Zika and dengue virus infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:3028–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Balmaseda A, et al. Antibody-based assay discriminates Zika virus infection from other flaviviruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:8384–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Dejnirattisai W, et al. Dengue virus sero-cross-reactivity drives antibody-dependent enhancement of infection with zika virus. Nat Immunol. 2016;17:1102–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Braack L, de Almeida AP, Cornel AJ, Swanepoel R, de Jager C. Mosquito-borne arboviruses of African origin: review of key viruses and vectors. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2559-9.
  22. Müller JA, et al. Development of a high-throughput colorimetric Zika virus infection assay. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2017;206:175–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Koishi AC, et al. Development and evaluation of a novel high-throughput image-based fluorescent neutralization test for detection of Zika virus infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006342.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson HL, Tran T, Druce J, Dupont-Rouzeyrol M, Catton M. Neutralization assay for Zika and dengue viruses by use of real-time-PCR-based endpoint assessment. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:3104–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Shan C, et al. A rapid Zika diagnostic assay to measure neutralizing antibodies in patients. EBioMedicine. 2017;17:157–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Saba Villarroel PM, et al. Zika virus epidemiology in Bolivia: a seroprevalence study in volunteer blood donors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006239.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019
corrected publication 2019

Advertisement