{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02871467639015497, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014129443938012761, 'mean_word_length': 4.9809264305177114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The use of semi‐automated EBV IgG avidity determination for the diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis

The diagnosis of acute Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) infection is based frequently on the combination of positive viral capsid antigen (VCA) IgM antibodies and negative EB viral nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA‐1) IgG antibodies. However, both VCA IgM and EBNA‐1 IgG can provide false positive and false negative results. Therefore, situations in which the EBV serology remains unclear are not uncommon. Determination of EBV IgG avidity can clarify the EBV status in these patients. So far, mainly immunofluorescence assays have been used for this purpose. These tests are laborious, their evaluation is subjective, and automation is difficult. Therefore, two commercially available microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) were compared for their usefulness for semi‐automated EBV IgG avidity determination. One assay is based on a mixture of EBV antigens, the other assay uses a synthetic peptide of the VCA‐complex. Patient sera of confirmed acute and past EBV infections were tested for avidity by both assays. The results with the antigen mixture assay proved to be highly sensitive (100%) and specific (100%). Avidity index calculations on the basis of one‐point‐quantification titers gave better results than calculations using OD values. Determination of EBV IgG avidity by the peptide assay was complicated by the fact that it was less sensitive than the antigen mixture assay for IgG detection in acute EBV infections. On the other hand, about 30% of the samples had to be retested with the peptide assay in a higher dilution because the IgG units in initial testing fell outside the range covered by the standard curve. Using OD values of the peptide EIA, the sensitivity was 99% but the specificity of detection of acute EBV infections was only 86%. Thus, while the peptide EBV avidity assay is unsuitable as a confirmatory assay, avidity testing with the antigen mixture assay is a useful tool to resolve equivocal EBV serologies. Avidity assays on the basis of EIA can be automated which should lead to wider use of this methodology. J. Med. Virol. 54:145–153, 1998. © 1998 Wiley‐Liss,Inc.