FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Acta Vet Scand / Prevalence of heterophilic antibodies in serum samples from ...
Acta veterinaria Scandinavica2021; 63(1); 10; doi: 10.1186/s13028-021-00575-1

Prevalence of heterophilic antibodies in serum samples from horses in an equine hospital, and elimination of interference using chicken IgY.

Abstract: Heterophilic antibodies in serum and plasma can interfere with mammalian antibodies in immunoassays and result in false test results, usually false positive. Although studies screening for heterophilic antibodies as well as elimination studies have been conducted in dogs and cats, knowledge of the presence of heterophilic antibodies in other species in veterinary medicine is limited. In this study, a 2-site sandwich-type interference assay that detects anti-mouse antibodies was used to detect heterophilic antibodies in a population of horses treated in an animal hospital. Results: A total of 194 serum samples from 127 individual horses were analyzed. There were 11/127 (8.7%) interference-positive horses, and these were analyzed in an assay exchanging the capture mouse IgG with chicken IgY. The positive samples were negative in the chicken IgY assay, indicating elimination of a possible interference, with the chicken-based assay. Four interference-positive samples were from geldings, and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was analyzed from these samples. AMH concentrations were negative in these samples as expected in geldings, indicating that the heterophilic antibodies did not cause interference in the AMH assay. Conclusions: The present study shows that there are heterophilic antibodies in horse serum samples like in samples from humans, dogs, and cats. The use of chicken-based reagents, such as chicken IgY, which do not cross-react with mammalian IgG, eliminates the effects of interfering antibodies in the samples. Equine heterophilic antibodies do not necessarily cause interference in commercial immunoassays.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-03-12 PubMed ID: 33712042PubMed Central: PMC7953668DOI: 10.1186/s13028-021-00575-1Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article discusses the prevalence of heterophilic antibodies in horse serum samples and the elimination of interference during testing, using chicken IgY. It also clarifies that these antibodies do not always interfere with results from immunoassays.

Research Background

  • Heterophilic antibodies are components of the immune system that can react with antibodies from other species. These can interfere with immunoassays and lead to incorrect results, often false positives.
  • Many studies have investigated the presence of these interfering antibodies in dogs and cats, but less work has been done on other animal species.

Study Objectives and Methodology

  • This research aimed to expand knowledge in this area by identifying heterophilic antibodies in horses. The team employed a 2-site sandwich-type interference assay to detect these antibodies in horses treated at a veterinary hospital.
  • As part of this work, the team also explored methods to reduce or eliminate these interferences in test results. They tested an approach which replaced the regular mouse IgG used in tests with chicken IgY.

Key Findings

  • Analysis of 194 serum samples from 127 different horses showed that about 8.7% had positive interference.
  • The samples that tested positive for interference were negative when tested using the chicken IgY process. This result suggests that using chicken-based reagents, like IgY, successfully removes potential interference.
  • The team also confirmed that the detected horse heterophilic antibodies did not interfere with the concentration findings of the anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), as expected in geldings (castrated horses).

Conclusions and Implications

  • The study demonstrates the presence of heterophilic antibodies in horse serum samples, similar to those previously detected in samples from humans, dogs, and cats.
  • The findings show that chicken-based reagents can effectively remove the effects of interfering antibodies without impacting the accuracy of the test results.
  • Importantly, the presence of these equine heterophilic antibodies does not necessarily lead to interference in commercial immunoassays. Thus, this opens an avenue for more precise and reliable diagnostic procedures in veterinary medicine.

Cite This Article

APA
Dong B, Bergman D, Holst BS. (2021). Prevalence of heterophilic antibodies in serum samples from horses in an equine hospital, and elimination of interference using chicken IgY. Acta Vet Scand, 63(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-021-00575-1

Publication

Acta veterinaria Scandinavica
ISSN: 1751-0147
NlmUniqueID: 0370400
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 63
Issue: 1
Pages: 10
PII: 10

Researcher Affiliations

Dong, Bo
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
  • College of Life Science of Longyan University, Longyan, 364012, China.
Bergman, Daniel
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Holst, Bodil Ström
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7054, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. Bodil.Strom-Holst@slu.se.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Antibodies, Heterophile / blood
  • Chickens
  • Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / veterinary
  • Horse Diseases / immunology
  • Horses
  • Immunoassay / veterinary
  • Immunoglobulin G
  • Immunoglobulins
  • Mice
  • Prevalence

Grant Funding

  • 2019J01804 / Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

This article includes 31 references
  1. Bolstad N, Warren DJ, Nustad K. Heterophilic antibody interference in immunometric assays.. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013 Oct;27(5):647-61.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2013.05.011pubmed: 24094636google scholar: lookup
  2. Bolstad N, Warren DJ, Bjerner J, Kravdal G, Schwettmann L, Olsen KH, Rustad P, Nustad K. Heterophilic antibody interference in commercial immunoassays; a screening study using paired native and pre-blocked sera.. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011 Sep 8;49(12):2001-6.
    pubmed: 21899496doi: 10.1515/cclm.2011.702google scholar: lookup
  3. Censi S, Cavedon E, Fernando SW, Barollo S, Bertazza L, Zambonin L, Zaninotto M, Faggian D, Plebani M, Mian C. Calcitonin measurement and immunoassay interference: a case report and literature review.. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016 Dec 1;54(12):1861-1870.
    pubmed: 27166721doi: 10.1515/cclm-2015-1161google scholar: lookup
  4. Mongolu S, Armston AE, Mozley E, Nasruddin A. Heterophilic antibody interference affecting multiple hormone assays: Is it due to rheumatoid factor?. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2016;76(3):240-2.
    doi: 10.3109/00365513.2016.1143113pubmed: 26924790google scholar: lookup
  5. García-González E, Aramendía M, Álvarez-Ballano D, Trincado P, Rello L. Serum sample containing endogenous antibodies interfering with multiple hormone immunoassays. Laboratory strategies to detect interference.. Pract Lab Med 2016 Apr 1;4:1-10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2015.11.001pmc: PMC5574524pubmed: 28856186google scholar: lookup
  6. Revet I, Boesten LS, Linthorst J, Yildiz E, Janssen JW, de Rijke YB. Misleading FT4 measurement: assay-dependent antibody interference. Biochem Med 2016;26:436–43.
    doi: 10.11613/BM.2016.046google scholar: lookup
  7. Rotmensch S, Cole LA. False diagnosis and needless therapy of presumed malignant disease in women with false-positive human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations.. Lancet 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):712-5.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)01324-6pubmed: 10703803google scholar: lookup
  8. Bergman D, Larsson A, Hansson-Hamlin H, Ström Holst B. Investigation of interference from canine anti-mouse antibodies in hormone immunoassays.. Vet Clin Pathol 2019 Oct;48 Suppl 1:59-69.
    pubmed: 31318069doi: 10.1111/vcp.12764google scholar: lookup
  9. Solter PF, Oyama MA, Sisson DD. Canine heterophilic antibodies as a source of false-positive B-type natriuretic peptide sandwich ELISA results.. Vet Clin Pathol 2008 Mar;37(1):86-95.
    pubmed: 18366550doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165x.2008.00002.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  10. Borromeo V, Berrini A, Gaggioli D, Secchi C. Heterophile antibodies in horse plasma interfering in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.. Vet Res Commun 2007 Aug;31 Suppl 1:165-8.
    doi: 10.1007/s11259-007-0023-6pubmed: 17682866google scholar: lookup
  11. Borromeo V, Berrini A, Gaggioli D, Secchi C. Heterophile antibody interference in a solid phase sandwich immunoassay for detection of equine growth hormone in plasma.. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2007 Jan 15;115(1-2):1-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.10.010pubmed: 17109971google scholar: lookup
  12. Kroll MH, Elin RJ. Interference with clinical laboratory analyses.. Clin Chem 1994 Nov;40(11 Pt 1):1996-2005.
    pubmed: 7955368
  13. Bergman D, Larsson A, Hansson-Hamlin H, Svensson A, Holst BS. Prevalence of interfering antibodies in dogs and cats evaluated using a species-independent assay.. Vet Clin Pathol 2018 Jun;47(2):205-212.
    pubmed: 29902338doi: 10.1111/vcp.12612google scholar: lookup
  14. Boscato LM, Stuart MC. Incidence and specificity of interference in two-site immunoassays.. Clin Chem 1986 Aug;32(8):1491-5.
    pubmed: 3731442
  15. Bjerner J, Nustad K, Norum LF, Olsen KH, Børmer OP. Immunometric assay interference: incidence and prevention.. Clin Chem 2002;48(4):613-21.
    pubmed: 11901059
  16. Ismail AA, Walker PL, Cawood ML, Barth JH. Interference in immunoassay is an underestimated problem.. Ann Clin Biochem 2002 Jul;39(Pt 4):366-73.
    pubmed: 12117440doi: 10.1258/000456302760042128google scholar: lookup
  17. Bergman D, Larsson A, Hansson-Hamlin H, Åhlén E, Holst BS. Characterization of canine anti-mouse antibodies highlights that multiple strategies are needed to combat immunoassay interference.. Sci Rep 2019 Oct 10;9(1):14521.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51228-3pmc: PMC6787031pubmed: 31601945google scholar: lookup
  18. Larsson A, Mellstedt H. Chicken antibodies: a tool to avoid interference by human anti-mouse antibodies in ELISA after in vivo treatment with murine monoclonal antibodies.. Hybridoma 1992 Feb;11(1):33-9.
    doi: 10.1089/hyb.1992.11.33pubmed: 1737638google scholar: lookup
  19. Mongolu S, Armston AE, Mozley E, Nasruddin A. Heterophilic antibody interference affecting multiple hormone assays: Is it due to rheumatoid factor?. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2016;76(3):240-2.
    doi: 10.3109/00365513.2016.1143113pubmed: 26924790google scholar: lookup
  20. McFarlane D. Diagnostic Testing for Equine Endocrine Diseases: Confirmation Versus Confusion.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019 Aug;35(2):327-338.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.03.005pubmed: 31076223google scholar: lookup
  21. Lönnberg M, Bondesson U, Cormant F, Garcia P, Bonnaire Y, Carlsson J, Popot MA, Rollborn N, Råsbo K, Bailly-Chouriberry L. Detection of recombinant human EPO administered to horses using MAIIA lateral flow isoform test.. Anal Bioanal Chem 2012 Jun;403(6):1619-28.
    doi: 10.1007/s00216-012-5972-0pubmed: 22526650google scholar: lookup
  22. Paragliola RM, Corsello A, Papi G, Melfa E, Urbani A, Pontecorvi A, Corsello SM, Carrozza C. Immunoassay Interference on Thyroid Function Tests During Treatment with Nivolumab.. Thyroid 2020 Jul;30(7):1091-1094.
    doi: 10.1089/thy.2019.0799pubmed: 32122271google scholar: lookup
  23. Claes A, Ball BA, Almeida J, Corbin CJ, Conley AJ. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations in stallions: developmental changes, seasonal variation, and differences between intact stallions, cryptorchid stallions, and geldings.. Theriogenology 2013 Jun;79(9):1229-35.
    doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.03.019pubmed: 23591325google scholar: lookup
  24. Carlander D, Larsson A. Avian antibodies can eliminate interference due to complement activation in ELISA.. Ups J Med Sci 2001;106(3):189-95.
    doi: 10.3109/2000-1967-145pubmed: 12166511google scholar: lookup
  25. Reinsberg J. Interferences with two-site immunoassays by human anti-mouse antibodies formed by patients treated with monoclonal antibodies: comparison of different blocking reagents.. Clin Chem 1998 Aug;44(8 Pt 1):1742-4.
    pubmed: 9702964
  26. van Vollenhoven RF. Sex differences in rheumatoid arthritis: more than meets the eye. BMC Med 2009;7:1–4.
    doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-1pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  27. Rasch EK, Hirsch R, Paulose-Ram R, Hochberg MC. Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in persons 60 years of age and older in the United States: effect of different methods of case classification.. Arthritis Rheum 2003 Apr;48(4):917-26.
    doi: 10.1002/art.10897pubmed: 12687533google scholar: lookup
  28. Hoikhman R, Kudlackova H, Babak V, Faldyna M, Jahn P. Detection of IgM-rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies in healthy horses and their comparison.. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2018 Aug;202:141-146.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2018.07.008pubmed: 30078588google scholar: lookup
  29. Kazmierczak SC, Catrou PG, Briley KP. Transient nature of interference effects from heterophile antibodies: examples of interference with cardiac marker measurements.. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000 Jan;38(1):33-9.
    pubmed: 10774959doi: 10.1515/cclm.2000.006google scholar: lookup
  30. Bjerner J, Børmer OP, Nustad K. The war on heterophilic antibody interference.. Clin Chem 2005 Jan;51(1):9-11.
    pubmed: 15613705doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2004.042994google scholar: lookup
  31. Bergman D, Bäckström C, Hansson-Hamlin H, Larsson A, Holst BS. Pre-existing canine anti-IgG antibodies: implications for immunotherapy, immunogenicity testing and immunoassay analysis.. Sci Rep 2020 Jul 29;10(1):12696.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56847-4pmc: PMC7391631pubmed: 32728049google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Dai S, Li J, Li J, Li L, Shi L, Cao L, Zhong X, Liu W, Wang Y, Ma L. Analysis of 4 cases of children with false-positive results of novel coronavirus-specific antibody. BMC Pediatr 2022 Jun 28;22(1):372.
    doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03425-9pubmed: 35765042google scholar: lookup
  2. Luo M, Wu Y, Lin Q, Zhang C. False-positive treponemal syphilis serology linked to EBV-related heterophile antibodies: Insights from a multi-platform diagnostic. IDCases 2025;42:e02403.
    doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2025.e02403pubmed: 41209423google scholar: lookup
  3. Nolen-Walston RD, Kulp JC, Stefanovski D, van Eps AW. Evaluation of an Automated Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay for Quantification of Equine Insulin and Comparison to Five Other Immunoassays. J Vet Intern Med 2025 Mar-Apr;39(2):e70038.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.70038pubmed: 40048611google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.