Ramos G S, Bottasso O A, Morini J C, Segal-Eiras A
Departamento de Patología, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina.
Rev Argent Microbiol. 1988 Oct-Dec;20(4):163-70.
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.
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。
