Special Issue "Diagnosis of Dengue and Other Flaviviral Infections"

A special issue of Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418). This special issue belongs to the section "Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2021.

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Day-Yu Chao
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan
Interests: flavivirus; arbovirus; diagnosis; virus-like particle; antibody response; evolution; quasispecies
Dr. Ranjan Ramasamy
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
IDFISH Technology, 556 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA95035, USA
Interests: Immunodiagnostics; Molecular Diagnostics; Vector-Borne Diseases; Immunology and Biochemistry

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Based on the WHO Report on “Global strategy for dengue prevention and control, 2012-2020”, the specific goal is to reduce mortality and morbidity from dengue by 2020 by at least 50% and 25%, respectively (using 2010 as the baseline). Although mortality from severe dengue is generally low in countries with good clinical management, the morbidity and economic burden on health services remains substantial in endemic settings. Diagnosis of dengue infection cannot only be complicated by a wide variety of conditions, such as co-circulation of other arboviral infection, but also bacterial and parasitic diseases much be considered in the differential diagnosis, depending on local disease epidemiology, travel history, and the clinical picture. The traditional choice of laboratory test relies on the onset of illness. New point-of-care technologies are being developed to improve performance, in some cases with the potential to test for multiple pathogens using a single specimens.

The goal of this Special Issue is to gain insights into how the utilization of new diagnostics in dengue diagnosis affects patient care and health outcomes in LMICincluding cost and discrimination from other flaviviral infection. Special attention can include recent diagnosis of patients co-infected by SARS-CoV-2 and dengue.

Dr. Day-Yu Chao
Dr. Ranjan Ramasamy
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Diagnostics is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • dengue
  • diagnosis
  • point-of-case
  • rapid test
  • differentiation

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle
Analysis of a Routinely Used Commercial Anti-Chikungunya IgM ELISA Reveals Cross-Reactivities with Dengue in Brazil: A New Challenge for Differential Diagnosis?
Diagnostics 2021, 11(5), 819; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050819 - 30 Apr 2021
Viewed by 359
Abstract
In Brazil, chikungunya emerged in 2014, and by 2016, co-circulated with other arbovirosis, such as dengue and zika. ELISAs (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays) are the most widely used approach for arboviruses diagnosis. However, some limitations include antibody cross reactivities when viruses belong to the [...] Read more.
In Brazil, chikungunya emerged in 2014, and by 2016, co-circulated with other arbovirosis, such as dengue and zika. ELISAs (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays) are the most widely used approach for arboviruses diagnosis. However, some limitations include antibody cross reactivities when viruses belong to the same genus, and sensitivity variations in distinct epidemiological scenarios. As chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is an alphavirus, no serological cross reactivity with dengue virus (DENV) should be observed. Here, we evaluated a routinely used chikungunya commercial IgM (Immunoglobulin M) ELISA test (Anti-Chikungunya IgM ELISA, Euroimmun) to assess its performance in confirming chikungunya in a dengue endemic area. Samples (n = 340) representative of all four DENV serotypes, healthy individuals and controls were tested. The Anti-CHIKV IgM ELISA test had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 25.3% due to the cross reactivities observed with dengue. In dengue acute cases, the chikungunya test showed an overall cross-reactivity of 31.6%, with a higher cross-reactivity with DENV-4. In dengue IgM positive cases, the assay showed a cross-reactivity of 46.7%. Serological diagnosis may be challenging and, despite the results observed here, more evaluations shall be performed. Because distinct arboviruses co-circulate in Brazil, reliable diagnostic tools are essential for disease surveillance and patient management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis of Dengue and Other Flaviviral Infections)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Comparable Accuracies of Nonstructural Protein 1- and Envelope Protein-Based Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays in Detecting Anti-Dengue Immunoglobulin G Antibodies
Diagnostics 2021, 11(5), 741; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050741 - 21 Apr 2021
Viewed by 277
Abstract
Background: Dengue virus (DENV) infection remains a global public health concern. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), which detect antibodies targeting the envelope (E) protein of DENV, serve as the front-line serological test for presumptive dengue diagnosis. Very few studies have determined the serostatus by [...] Read more.
Background: Dengue virus (DENV) infection remains a global public health concern. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), which detect antibodies targeting the envelope (E) protein of DENV, serve as the front-line serological test for presumptive dengue diagnosis. Very few studies have determined the serostatus by detecting antibodies targeting the nonstructural protein 1 (NS1), which can function as diagnostic biomarkers to distinguish natural immunity from vaccine-induced immunity. Methods: We used community-acquired human serum specimens, with the serostatus confirmed by focus reduction microneutralization test (FRμNT), to evaluate the diagnostic performances of two NS1-based ELISA methods, namely, immunoglobulin G antibody-capture ELISA (NS1 GAC–ELISA) and indirect NS1 IgG ELISA, and compared the results with an E-based virus-like particle (VLP) GAC–ELISA. Results: NS1-based methods had comparable accuracies as VLP GAC–ELISA. Although the sensitivity in detecting anti-NS1 IgM was poor, indirect NS1 IgG ELISA showed similar limits of detection (~1–2 ng/mL) as NS1 GAC–ELISA in detecting anti-NS1 IgG. Combining the results from two or more tests as a composite reference standard can determine the DENV serostatus with a specificity reaching 100%. Conclusion: NS1-based ELISAs have comparable accuracies as VLP GAC–ELISA in determining dengue serostatus, which could effectively assist clinicians during assessments of vaccine eligibility. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis of Dengue and Other Flaviviral Infections)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop