Detection of eastern equine encephalitis virus in infected mosquitoes using a monoclonal antibody-based antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

Eastern, Western, and Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Viruses: Clinical and Public Health Considerations

The continued recognition and emergence of alphavirus and flavivirus diseases is a growing veterinary and public health concern. As the global environment continues to change, mosquito-borne diseases will continue to evolve and expand. Continued development of readily available vaccines for the prevention of these diseases in humans and animals is essential to controlling epizootics of these diseases. Further research into effective antiviral treatments is also sorely needed. This article describes equine encephalitis viruses with a focus on clinical and public health considerations.

Comprehensive mapping of common immunodominant epitopes in the eastern equine encephalitis virus E2 protein recognized by avian antibody responses

Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) is a mosquito-borne virus that can cause both human and equine encephalitis with high case fatality rates. EEEV can also be widespread among birds, including pheasants, ostriches, emu, turkeys, whooping cranes and chickens. The E2 protein of EEEV and other Alphaviruses is an important immunogenic protein that elicits antibodies of diagnostic value. While many therapeutic and diagnostic applications of E2 protein-specific antibodies have been reported, the specific epitopes on E2 protein recognized by the antibody responses of different susceptible hosts, including avian species, remain poorly defined. In the present study, the avian E2-reactive polyclonal antibody (PAb) response was mapped to linear peptide epitopes using PAbs elicited in chickens and ducks following immunization with recombinant EEEV E2 protein and a series of 42 partially overlapping peptides covering the entire EEEV E2 protein. We identified 12 and 13 peptides recognized by the chicken and duck PAb response, respectively. Six of these linear peptides were commonly recognized by PAbs elicited in both avian species. Among them five epitopes recognized by both avian, the epitopes located at amino acids 211–226 and 331–352 were conserved among the EEEV antigenic complex, but not other associated alphaviruses, whereas the epitopes at amino acids 11–26, 30–45 and 151–166 were specific to EEEV subtype I. The five common peptide epitopes were not recognized by avian PAbs against Avian Influenza Virus (AIV) and Duck Plague Virus (DPV). The identification and characterization of EEEV E2 antibody epitopes may be aid the development of diagnostic tools and facilitate the design of epitope-based vaccines for EEEV. These results also offer information with which to study the structure of EEEV E2 protein.

Analysis of murine B-cell epitopes on Eastern equine encephalitis virus glycoprotein E2

The Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) E2 protein is one of the main targets of the protective immune response against EEEV. Although some efforts have done to elaborate the structure and immune molecular basis of Alphaviruses E2 protein, the published data of EEEV E2 are limited. Preparation of EEEV E2 protein-specific antibodies and define MAbs-binding epitopes on E2 protein will be conductive to the antibody-based prophylactic and therapeutic and to the study on structure and function of EEEV E2 protein. In this study, 51 EEEV E2 protein-reactive monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and antisera (polyclonal antibodies, PAbs) were prepared and characterized. By pepscan with MAbs and PAbs using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, we defined 18 murine linear B-cell epitopes. Seven peptide epitopes were recognized by both MAbs and PAbs, nine epitopes were only recognized by PAbs, and two epitopes were only recognized by MAbs. Among the epitopes recognized by MAbs, seven epitopes were found only in EEEV and two epitopes were found both in EEEV and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV). Four of the EEEV antigenic complex-specific epitopes were commonly held by EEEV subtypes I/II/III/IV (1-16aa, 248-259aa, 271-286aa, 321-336aa probably located in E2 domain A, domain B, domain C, domain C, respectively). The remaining three epitopes were EEEV type-specific epitopes: a subtype I-specific epitope at amino acids 108-119 (domain A), a subtype I/IV-specific epitope at amino acids 211-226 (domain B) and a subtype I/II/III-specific epitope at amino acids 231-246 (domain B). The two common epitopes of EEEV and VEEV were located at amino acids 131-146 and 241-256 (domain B). The generation of EEEV E2-specific MAbs with defined specificities and binding epitopes will inform the development of differential diagnostic approaches and structure study for EEEV and associated alphaviruses.

Detection of West Nile virus antigen in mosquitoes and avian tissues by a monoclonal antibody-based capture enzyme immunoassay

An antigen capture immunoassay to detect West Nile (WN) virus antigen in infected mosquitoes and avian tissues has been developed. With this assay purified WN virus was detected at a concentration of 32 pg/0.1 ml, and antigen in infected suckling mouse brain and laboratory-infected mosquito pools could be detected when the WN virus titer was 10(2.1) to 10(3.7) PFU/0.1 ml. In a blindly coded set of field-collected mosquito pools (n = 100), this assay detected WN virus antigen in 12 of 18 (66.7%) TaqMan-positive pools, whereas traditional reverse transcriptase PCR detected 10 of 18 (55.5%) positive pools. A sample set of 73 organ homogenates from naturally infected American crows was also examined by WN virus antigen capture immunoassay and TaqMan for the presence of WN virus. The antigen capture assay detected antigen in 30 of 34 (88.2%) TaqMan-positive tissues. Based upon a TaqMan-generated standard curve of infectious WN virus, the limit of detection in the antigen capture assay for avian tissue homogenates was approximately 10(3) PFU/0.1 ml. The recommended WN virus antigen capture protocol, which includes a capture assay followed by a confirmatory inhibition assay used to retest presumptive positive samples, could distinguish between the closely related WN and St. Louis encephalitis viruses in virus-infected mosquito pools and avian tissues. Therefore, this immunoassay demonstrates adequate sensitivity and specificity for surveillance of WN virus activity in mosquito vectors and avian hosts, and, in addition, it is easy to perform and relatively inexpensive compared with the TaqMan assay.

Detection of encephalitis viruses in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and avian tissues

ABSTRACT Diagnostic assays for the detection of St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) and western equine encephalomyelitis (WEE) viruses in mosquito pools and avian tissues were compared for sensitivity, accuracy and specificity. The in situ enzyme immunoassay (EIA), plaque assay on Vero cells, passage in Aedes albopictus Skuse C6/36 and C7/10 cells, antigen capture enzyme immunoassay (AC-EIA), and single and multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCR) were evaluated using pools of 50 mosquitoes containing 1-2 experimentally infected individuals. RT-PCR was the most sensitive assay, with a detection limit of <0.1 plaque forming unit. AC-EIA was the fastest and most economical procedure, but was the least sensitive, detecting only 38% of positive pools. The in situ EIA included initial virus amplification on Vero cells, thereby improving assay sensitivity to detect 68% of positive pools. Passage in C6/36 and/or C7/10 cell culture revealed the presence of infectious virus in samples positive by RT-PCR, but initially negative by plaque assay on Vero cell culture, indicating that detection was related to assay sensitivity and not to the absence of intact infectious virus. Combining WEE and SLE RT-PCR assays into a multiplex assay reduced sensitivity, but stilldetected viral RNA at titers below plaque assay sensitivity. Plaque assay on Vero cells, mosquito cell passage, and several RT-PCR procedures were evaluated for their ability to detect WEE and SLE in white-crowned sparrow tissues during acute and chronic stages of infection. All assays detected virus during acute infection at times of high viremia; however, only RT-PCR assays were positive by day 7 when virus was not detected in sera. RT-PCR detected SLE RNA in spleen tissue from one bird 51 d after infection. Assay sensitivity also was compared using extracts of homogenized bird organs spiked with known titers of WEE and SLE. Trizol RNA extraction followed by Qiagen one-step RT-PCR was the most sensitive method, but occasionally resulted in the presence of secondary bands confounding interpretation and requiring confirmatory assays. A balanced surveillance program should combine systems that allow the detection of new agents and the sensitive monitoring of endemic agents to provide an early warning of pending health risks.