Suppr超能文献

台湾地区严重急性呼吸综合征相关冠状病毒感染的血清学和分子生物学方法

Serologic and molecular biologic methods for SARS-associated coronavirus infection, Taiwan.

作者信息

Wu Ho-Sheng, Chiu Shu-Chun, Tseng Tsan-Chang, Lin Szu-Fong, Lin Jih-Hui, Hsu Yu-Hen, Wang Mei-Ching, Lin Tsuey-Li, Yang Wen-Zieh, Ferng Tian-Lin, Huang Kai-Hung, Hsu Li-Ching, Lee Li-Li, Yang Jyh-Yuan, Chen Hour-Young, Su Shun-Pi, Yang Shih-Yan, Lin Shih-Yan, Lin Ting-Hsiang, Su Ih-Sen

机构信息

Center for Disease Control, Department of Health, Taiwan, Republic of China.

出版信息

Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Feb;10(2):304-10. doi: 10.3201/eid1002.030731.

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has raised a global alert since March 2003. After its causative agent, SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV), was confirmed, laboratory methods, including virus isolation, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and serologic methods, have been quickly developed. In this study, we evaluated four serologic tests ( neutralization test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], immunofluorescent assay [IFA], and immunochromatographic test [ICT]) for detecting antibodies to SARS-CoV in sera of 537 probable SARS case-patients with correlation to the RT-PCR. With the neutralization test as a reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 98.2%, 98.7%, 98.7%, and 98.4% for ELISA; 99.1%, 87.8%, 88.1% and 99.1% for IFA; 33.6%, 98.2%, 95.7%, and 56.1% for ICT, respectively. We also compared the recombinant-based western blot with the whole virus-based IFA and ELISA; the data showed a high correlation between these methods, with an overall agreement of >90%. Our results provide a systematic analysis of serologic and molecular methods for evaluating SARS-CoV infection.

摘要

自2003年3月以来,严重急性呼吸综合征(SARS)已拉响全球警报。在其病原体——严重急性呼吸综合征相关冠状病毒(SARS-CoV)被确认后,包括病毒分离、逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)在内的实验室方法以及血清学方法迅速得到开发。在本研究中,我们评估了四种血清学检测方法(中和试验、酶联免疫吸附测定[ELISA]、免疫荧光测定[IFA]和免疫层析试验[ICT]),用于检测537例疑似SARS病例患者血清中针对SARS-CoV的抗体,并与RT-PCR结果进行相关性分析。以中和试验作为参考方法,ELISA的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为98.2%、98.7%、98.7%和98.4%;IFA分别为99.1%、87.8%、88.1%和99.1%;ICT分别为33.6%、98.2%、95.7%和56.1%。我们还比较了基于重组蛋白的免疫印迹法与基于全病毒的IFA和ELISA;数据显示这些方法之间具有高度相关性,总体一致性>90%。我们的结果为评估SARS-CoV感染的血清学和分子方法提供了系统分析。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a6be/3322922/0014a91321b8/03-0731-F1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验