Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 22, Number 9—September 2016

Specificity of Dengue NS1 Antigen in Differential Diagnosis of Dengue and Zika Virus Infection

Cite This Article

To the Editor: Circulation of new arboviruses of the genus Flavivirus poses a major problem for differential diagnosis. Zika virus, a mosquitoborne virus of the family Flaviviridae, is closely related to other arboviruses circulating in the Americas, including dengue, yellow fever, Saint Louis encephalitis, and West Nile viruses (1,2). Serologic cross-reactivity between these arboviruses is common; thus, to ensure optimal patient care and accurate epidemiologic surveillance, an effective differential diagnosis is required in regions with active transmission of dengue virus and circulation of Zika virus (24).

Cross-reactivity between flaviviruses has been reported in antibody assays and in tests for Dengue nonstructural 1 glycoprotein (NS1) antigen. Gyurech et al. (5) reported false-positive test results for dengue NS1 antigen in a patient with acute Zika virus infection. Of the 3 NS1 tests used in that study, only the SD Bioline Dengue Duo (Standard Diagnostics, Inc., Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) showed positive results for 3 of 4 sequential serum samples from the patient.

Cross-reactivity in NS1 dengue tests (ELISA and immunochromatographic) using serum samples from patients with acute Zika virus infection would have medically significant consequences. We therefore conducted a retrospective analysis of the differential diagnosis for dengue and Zika virus infections since the beginning of the Zika virus outbreak in French Guiana, a department of France on the northeast coast of South America.

French Guiana is subject to endemoepidemic circulation of dengue and experienced a large outbreak of chikungunya in 2014. We conducted our study from December 17, 2015 (the time of biologic confirmation of the first case of Zika virus disease in French Guiana), through March 2, 2016. During that time, the incidence of dengue virus infection in French Guiana was low, and only 1 sporadic case was confirmed. We studied clinical samples collected during this period from all patients with suspected arbovirus infection. Samples were analyzed for the differential diagnosis of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus disease. Zika virus diagnosis was conducted by the National Reference Centre for Arboviruses (NRC) at the Institut Pasteur of French Guiana, in Cayenne, according to the real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) protocol described by Lanciotti et al. (3). Dengue diagnosis was routinely performed by all medical diagnostic laboratories using various rRT-PCR techniques or dengue NS1 test kits. We used the same SD Bioline Dengue Duo test used by Gyurech et al. (5); this test was performed at the laboratory of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Ouest-Guyanais in Saint-Laurent du Maroni, French Guiana. We also used the Platelia Dengue NS1 Ag kit (Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France); the assay was performed at NRC.

Since Zika virus first appeared in French Guiana, the NRC has investigated 270 samples collected 0–5 days after fever onset for molecular diagnosis of Zika virus and dengue NS1. Of the 270 suspected patients, 65 were confirmed positive for acute Zika virus infection by rRT-PCR of serum, urine, or both. The mean cycle thresholds (± SDs) were 33.0 (± 3.4) for serum samples and 33.2 (± 3.5) for urine samples (Table). Of the 65 acute-phase Zika virus–positive serum samples, 36 were also tested with the Platelia Dengue NS1 test, 21 were tested with the SD Bioline Dengue Duo test, and 8 were tested with both tests; none of the results were positive. Of the 205 Zika virus–negative samples, 204 were also negative for dengue NS1; only 1 patient had a positive dengue NS1 test result, and the infection was confirmed by molecular investigations to be a case of acute dengue-1 disease.

This retrospective analysis of dengue and Zika virus diagnoses indicates that no false-positive dengue NS1 test results occurred among samples with acute-phase Zika virus infection. Indeed, samples from all 65 patients with rRT-PCR–confirmed acute Zika virus infection were negative by both dengue NS1 tests. Zika virus is closely related to dengue virus, and during the acute phase of disease, Zika virus might release NS1 into patients’ serum; however, this putatively released nonstructural protein does not appear to cross-react with the dengue NS1 tests used in our study. No Zika NS1 antigen assay currently exists, and acute-phase release of Zika NS1 has not been verified. If a Zika virus NS1 test is developed, it should be evaluated for cross-reactivity with serum from patients with acute dengue infection. The false-positive result reported by Gyurech et al. (5) for dengue NS1 antigen in a patient with acute Zika virus infection requires further investigation. Little is known about false-positive NS1 tests. Zika virus might show cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses and possibly cytomegalovirus, and hematologic disorders might cause NS1 positivity (6,7).

The co-circulation of Zika virus and dengue virus in the Americas is causing a health emergency. Our findings show that dengue NS1 antigen assays are still entirely appropriate for dengue surveillance, even during the epidemic circulation of Zika virus.


Séverine MatheusComments to Author , Rachida Boukhari, Bhety Labeau, Valérie Ernault, Laetitia Bremand, Mirdad Kazanji, and Dominique Rousset
Author affiliations: Institut Pasteur de la Guyane, Cayenne, French Guiana (S. Matheus, B. Labeau, L. Bremand, M. Kazanji, D. Rousset); Centre Hospitalier de l’Ouest-Guyanais, Saint-Laurent du Maroni, French Guiana (R. Boukhari, V. Ernault)



  1. Dick  GW, Kitchen  SF, Haddow  AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46:50920. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pierson  TC, Diamond  MS. Flaviviruses. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, editors. Fields virology, 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. p. 747–94.
  3. Lanciotti  RS, Kosoy  OL, Laven  JJ, Velez  JO, Lambert  AJ, Johnson  AJ, Genetic and serologic properties of Zika virus associated with an epidemic, Yap State, Micronesia, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:12329. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Waggoner  JJ, Pinsky  BA. Zika virus: diagnostics for an emerging pandemic threat. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54:8607 . DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gyurech  D, Schilling  J, Schmidt-Chanasit  J, Cassinotti  P, Kaeppeli  F, Dobec  M. False positive dengue NS1 antigen test in a traveller with an acute Zika virus infection imported into Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2016;146:w14296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang  SM, Sekaran  SD. Evaluation of a commercial SD dengue virus NS1 antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit for early diagnosis of dengue virus infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:27937. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung  SJ, Krishnan  PU, Leo  YS. Two cases of false-positive dengue non-structural protein 1 (NS1) antigen in patients with hematological malignancies and a review of the literature on the use of NS1 for the detection of dengue infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92:3679. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2209.160725

Related Links


Table of Contents – Volume 22, Number 9—September 2016

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Séverine Matheus, Institut Pasteur de la Guyane, Centre National de Référence des Arbovirus, laboratoire associé, 23 avenue Pasteur, BP 6010-97306 Cayenne CEDEX, French Guiana

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: August 16, 2016
Page updated: August 16, 2016
Page reviewed: August 16, 2016
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.