三种市售基于肽的免疫球蛋白G（IgG）和IgA检测方法与微量免疫荧光检测法检测沙眼衣原体抗体的比较。
Comparison of three commercially available peptide-based immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA assays to microimmunofluorescence assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis antibodies.
作者信息
Morré Servaas A, Munk Christian, Persson Kenneth, Krüger-Kjaer Susanne, van Dijk Rogier, Meijer Chris J L M, van Den Brule Adriaan J C
机构信息
Department of Pathology, Section of Molecular Pathology, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
出版信息
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Feb;40(2):584-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.2.584-587.2002.
Three commercially available, peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) systems (Chlamydia trachomatis IgG and IgA EIA [CT-EIA; Labsystems OY, Helsinki, Finland], SeroCT IgG and IgA [SeroCT; Savyon Diagnostics Ltd., Ashdod, Israel], and Chlamydia trachomatis IgG and IgA pELISA [CT pELISA; Medac, Wedel, Germany]) were evaluated for the detection of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA antibodies specific for Chlamydia trachomatis and compared to the "gold standard" assay, the microimmunofluorescence (MIF) assay. Serological responses were analyzed in 149 women aged 20 to 30 years. Cervical swabs obtained from these women were examined for C. trachomatis by PCR, and 43 were found to be positive. The overall seroprevalence rates detected by CT-EIA, SeroCT, CT pELISA, and the MIF assay were 42, 42, 35, and 39%, respectively, for IgG and 7, 7, 3, and 7%, respectively, for IgA. The IgG seroprevalence rates for the PCR-positive women were two to three times higher than those for the PCR-negative women, i.e., 72 versus 29%, 72 versus 29%, 47 versus 26%, and 74 versus 25% for CT-EIA, SeroCT, CT pELISA, and the MIF assay, respectively. After discrepancy analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for the IgG assays; for CT-EIA they were 84.7, 98.6, 98.4, and 86.7%, respectively; for CT pELISA they were 71.4, 97.3, 96.2, and 78.3%, respectively; for SeroCT they were 84.7, 98.6, 98.4, and 86.3%, respectively; and for the MIF assay they were 79.2, 83.1, 98.3, and 83.1%, respectively. In conclusion, these peptide-based ELISA systems for the serological detection of C. trachomatis infection performed as well as the MIF assay. Since these tests are less time-consuming, less expensive, and easier to perform than the MIF assay, they might be useful in the serodiagnosis of chlamydial infection.
评估了三种市售的基于肽的酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）系统（沙眼衣原体IgG和IgA酶免疫测定[CT-EIA；芬兰赫尔辛基的Labsystems OY公司]、SeroCT IgG和IgA测定[SeroCT；以色列阿什杜德的Savyon诊断有限公司]以及沙眼衣原体IgG和IgA微孔板ELISA[CT pELISA；德国韦德尔的Medac公司]）用于检测沙眼衣原体特异性血清免疫球蛋白G（IgG）和IgA抗体，并与“金标准”检测方法——微量免疫荧光（MIF）测定进行比较。分析了149名年龄在20至30岁之间女性的血清学反应。从这些女性中获取的宫颈拭子通过聚合酶链反应（PCR）检测沙眼衣原体，发现43例呈阳性。CT-EIA、SeroCT、CT pELISA和MIF测定检测到的总体IgG血清阳性率分别为42%、42%、35%和39%，IgA的血清阳性率分别为7%、7%、3%和7%。PCR阳性女性的IgG血清阳性率比PCR阴性女性高两到三倍，即CT-EIA、SeroCT、CT pELISA和MIF测定分别为72%对29%、72%对29%、47%对26%和74%对25%。经过差异分析，计算了IgG检测方法的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值；CT-EIA的分别为84.7%、98.6%、98.4%和86.7%；CT pELISA的分别为71.4%、97.3%、96.2%和78.3%；SeroCT的分别为84.7%、98.6%、98.4%和86.3%；MIF测定的分别为79.2%、83.1%、98.3%和83.1%。总之，这些用于沙眼衣原体感染血清学检测的基于肽的ELISA系统与MIF测定表现相当。由于这些检测方法比MIF测定耗时更少、成本更低且更易于操作，它们可能在衣原体感染的血清诊断中有用。
Zotero 插件