Suppr超能文献

麻风病中循环免疫复合物的评估。

Evaluation of circulating immune complexes in leprosy.

作者信息

Ramos G S, Bottasso O A, Morini J C, Segal-Eiras A

机构信息

Departamento de Patología, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina.

出版信息

Rev Argent Microbiol. 1988 Oct-Dec;20(4):163-70.

PMID:3247413
Abstract

Circulating immune complexes (CIC) were evaluated in leprosy by 4 methods: the 125I-C1q binding assay (C1q), the platelet aggregation test (PAT), the 3.5% polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation test and the 2.5% PEG precipitation assay. Serum samples belonged to lepromatous leprosy bacilloscopy positive (LL+), lepromatous leprosy bacilloscopy negative (LL-), tuberculoid (TT) and first grade contact group (Co). Studies performed by the 3 first methods showed higher CIC levels in LL+ group (p less than 0.01) and lower values in the 3 others, all of them when compared to normals. On the contrary, the 2.5% PEG precipitation test gave less discriminative results giving only p less than 0.01 in LL+. CIC values obtained in the contact group showed significant results compared to normals but similar to LL- and TT groups. The C1q binding assay and the PAT were the most discriminative methods giving r = 0.90; C1q versus 3.5% PEG, r = 0.36; C1q vs 2.5% PEG, r = 0.14. The PAT compared to 3.5% PEG, r = 0.48 and PAT vs. 2.5% PEG, r = 0.24. Therefore it may be concluded as follows: a) The radioiodinated C1q binding assay and the PAT are recommended for the study of CIC in leprosy; b) The 2.5% PEG precipitation assay offers less sensitivity since it gave similar value in LL-, TT, Co and controls; c) CIC levels observed in LL+ patients may be induced by the antigenic overload demonstrated by the positive bacilloscopy; d) The contacts have CIC levels significantly different from the normal population possibly caused by a subclinical infection.

摘要

采用4种方法对麻风病患者的循环免疫复合物(CIC)进行评估:125I-C1q结合试验(C1q)、血小板聚集试验(PAT)、3.5%聚乙二醇(PEG)沉淀试验和2.5%PEG沉淀试验。血清样本来自瘤型麻风菌检阳性(LL+)、瘤型麻风菌检阴性(LL-)、结核样型(TT)和一级接触者组(Co)。前3种方法的研究显示,LL+组的CIC水平较高(p<0.01),其他3组的CIC水平较低,与正常人群相比均如此。相反,2.5%PEG沉淀试验的鉴别结果较差,仅在LL+组中p<0.01。接触者组获得的CIC值与正常人群相比有显著差异,但与LL-组和TT组相似。C1q结合试验和PAT是最具鉴别力的方法,r = 0.90;C1q与3.5%PEG相比,r = 0.36;C1q与2.5%PEG相比,r = 0.14。PAT与3.5%PEG相比,r = 0.48;PAT与2.5%PEG相比,r = 0.24。因此,可以得出以下结论:a)推荐采用放射性碘化C1q结合试验和PAT来研究麻风病中的CIC;b)2.5%PEG沉淀试验的敏感性较低,因为它在LL-组、TT组、Co组和对照组中的值相似;c)LL+患者中观察到的CIC水平可能是由菌检阳性所显示的抗原过载引起的;d)接触者的CIC水平与正常人群有显著差异,可能是由亚临床感染引起的。

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