La Scola B, Rydkina L, Ndihokubwayo J B, Vene S, Raoult D
Unité des Rickettsies, CNRS UPRESA 6020, Faculté de Médecine, Université de la Mediterranée, 13385 Marseille Cedex 05, France.
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2000 Jul;7(4):612-6. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.7.4.612-616.2000.
Differentiation of murine typhus due to Rickettsia typhi and epidemic typhus due to Rickettsia prowazekii is critical epidemiologically but difficult serologically. Using serological, epidemiological, and clinical criteria, we selected sera from 264 patients with epidemic typhus and from 44 patients with murine typhus among the 29,188 tested sera in our bank. These sera cross-reacted extensively in indirect fluorescent antibody assays (IFAs) against R. typhi and R. prowazekii, as 42% of the sera from patients with epidemic typhus and 34% of the sera from patients with murine typhus exhibited immunoglobulin M (IgM) and/or IgG titers against the homologous antigen (R. prowazekii and R. typhi, respectively) that were more than one dilution higher than those against the heterologous antigen. Serum cross-adsorption studies and Western blotting were performed on sera from 12 selected patients, 5 with murine typhus, 5 with epidemic typhus, and 2 suffering from typhus of undetermined etiology. Differences in IFA titers against R. typhi and R. prowazekii allowed the identification of the etiological agent in 8 of 12 patients. Western blot studies enabled the identification of the etiological agent in six patients. When the results of IFA and Western blot studies were considered in combination, identification of the etiological agent was possible for 10 of 12 patients. Serum cross-adsorption studies enabled the differentiation of the etiological agent in all patients. Our study indicates that when used together, Western blotting and IFA are useful serological tools to differentiate between R. prowazekii and R. typhi exposures. While a cross-adsorption study is the definitive technique to differentiate between infections with these agents, it was necessary in only 2 of 12 cases (16.7%), and the high costs of such a study limit its use.
由斑疹伤寒立克次体引起的鼠型斑疹伤寒和由普氏立克次体引起的流行性斑疹伤寒在流行病学上的鉴别至关重要,但血清学鉴别却很困难。依据血清学、流行病学和临床标准,我们从我们血清库中检测的29188份血清里,挑选出了264例流行性斑疹伤寒患者的血清以及44例鼠型斑疹伤寒患者的血清。这些血清在针对斑疹伤寒立克次体和普氏立克次体的间接荧光抗体试验(IFA)中广泛交叉反应,因为42%的流行性斑疹伤寒患者血清和34%的鼠型斑疹伤寒患者血清针对同源抗原(分别为普氏立克次体和斑疹伤寒立克次体)的免疫球蛋白M(IgM)和/或IgG滴度比对异源抗原的滴度高出一个以上稀释度。对12例选定患者的血清进行了血清交叉吸附研究和蛋白质印迹法检测,其中5例患鼠型斑疹伤寒,5例患流行性斑疹伤寒,2例病因未明的斑疹伤寒患者。针对斑疹伤寒立克次体和普氏立克次体的IFA滴度差异使得12例患者中的8例得以鉴定出病原体。蛋白质印迹法研究使6例患者鉴定出了病原体。当综合考虑IFA和蛋白质印迹法研究结果时,12例患者中的10例能够鉴定出病原体。血清交叉吸附研究使所有患者的病原体得以鉴别。我们的研究表明,蛋白质印迹法和IFA联合使用时,是区分普氏立克次体和斑疹伤寒立克次体感染的有用血清学工具。虽然交叉吸附研究是区分这些病原体感染的决定性技术,但仅在12例中的2例(16.7%)有必要进行,而且这种研究成本高昂限制了其应用。