Suppr超能文献

通过酶联免疫吸附测定和免疫荧光技术对两种用于呼吸道合胞病毒感染快速诊断的新测试进行比较。

Comparison of two new tests for rapid diagnosis of respiratory syncytial virus infections by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunofluorescence techniques.

作者信息

Freymuth F, Quibriac M, Petitjean J, Amiel M L, Pothier P, Denis A, Duhamel J F

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Dec;24(6):1013-6. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.6.1013-1016.1986.

Abstract

The sensitivity and the specificity of two new commercial reagent tests, an indirect fluorescent antibody test (FAT) with a mouse monoclonal antibody (MAb) against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) RSV antigen detection kit, were determined by a comparison of results from these tests with those of tissue culture isolation and an indirect FAT with bovine polyclonal antibody (BPA). Of 251 nasal aspirates from infants with suspected RSV infection, positive results were found for 99 (39%) by the FAT-MAb, 93 (37%) by the FAT-BPA, and 87 (35%) by the ELISA; 69 of 240 (29%) were positive by cultures. The FAT-MAb was a more sensitive technique than cultures, with 87% sensitivity for the FAT-MAb and 84% for the ELISA. It was also more sensitive than the FAT-BPA, with 97% sensitivity for the FAT-MAb and 85% for the ELISA. This could be caused only by the distinctive volume of suspended specimens used in these tests. Of 171 negative culture specimens, positive (but not false-positive) results were found for 18% by the FAT-MAb and for 12% by the ELISA. Inversely, 13% of 69 culture positive specimens were FAT-MAb negative and 16% were ELISA negative, emphasizing the importance of tissue cultures for the maximum recovery of RSV, as well as for detection of other respiratory viruses. The FAT-MAb and ELISA were easy to perform and interpret, thus facilitating wider use.

摘要

通过将两种新型商用试剂检测(一种是针对呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)的小鼠单克隆抗体(MAb)间接荧光抗体检测(FAT),另一种是酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)RSV抗原检测试剂盒)的结果与组织培养分离结果以及牛多克隆抗体(BPA)间接FAT的结果进行比较,来确定它们的敏感性和特异性。在251份疑似RSV感染婴儿的鼻吸出物中,FAT-MAb检测出99份(39%)呈阳性,FAT-BPA检测出93份(37%)呈阳性,ELISA检测出87份(35%)呈阳性;240份样本中有69份(29%)通过培养呈阳性。FAT-MAb是一种比培养更敏感的技术,FAT-MAb的敏感性为87%,ELISA为84%。它也比FAT-BPA更敏感,FAT-MAb的敏感性为97%,ELISA为85%。这可能仅由这些检测中使用的悬浮样本的不同体积所致。在171份培养阴性的样本中,FAT-MAb检测出18%呈阳性(但不是假阳性),ELISA检测出12%呈阳性。相反,69份培养阳性样本中有13% FAT-MAb呈阴性,16% ELISA呈阴性,这强调了组织培养对于最大程度回收RSV以及检测其他呼吸道病毒的重要性。FAT-MAb和ELISA易于操作和解读,因此便于更广泛地使用。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1

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