Suppr超能文献

四种检测隐孢子虫种类的不同方法的比较。

Comparison of four different methods for detection of Cryptosporidium species.

作者信息

Kehl K S, Cicirello H, Havens P L

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Feb;33(2):416-8. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.2.416-418.1995.

Abstract

Newly available assays offer alternatives to conventional microscopic examination for Cryptosporidium spp. We compared two enzyme immunoassays, ProSpect Cryptosporidium microtiter assay (Alexon, Inc., Mountain View, Calif.) and Color Vue Cryptosporidium assay (Serady, Indianapolis, Ind.), and a direct immunofluorescent assay, Merifluor Cryptosporidium kit (Meridian Diagnostics, Cincinnati, Ohio), with acid-fast Kinyoun-staining for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Examinations were performed on 129 stool specimens received from patients during a recent waterborne outbreak. A specimen was considered positive when organisms could be identified visually by acid-fast and immunofluorescent stains or if organisms could be visualized by either acid-fast or immunofluorescent stain and detected by both enzyme immunoassays. The final number of positive specimens was 55. No single procedure detected all 55 positive specimens. Of these, ProSpect and Color Vue detected 52 (sensitivity, 94.5%), and the Kinyoun stain and Merifluor detected 53 (sensitivity, 96.4%). The final number of negative specimens was 74. One false-positive result was seen with both the Kinyoun stain and the ProSpect assay. The Color Vue and ProSpect assays required the most hands-on technologist time. The ProSpect assay and Merifluor kit were easiest to perform. The acid-fast stain was difficult to interpret. The Merifluor kit was easiest to read and was adaptable to both batch and single testing. Overall, the Kinyoun stain and the Merifluor test were preferable to both of the enzyme immunoassays because of the high reagent cost and hands-on time required for the enzyme immunoassays. The difficult interpretation of the Kinyoun stain smears made the Merifluor a more desirable test despite its higher cost. We conclude that all methods tested were equally sensitive and specific for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Ease of use, adaptability to batch testing, and cost are important criteria in determining the method of choice.

摘要

新出现的检测方法为隐孢子虫属的检测提供了替代传统显微镜检查的方法。我们比较了两种酶免疫测定法,即ProSpect隐孢子虫微量滴定测定法(Alexon公司,加利福尼亚州山景城)和Color Vue隐孢子虫测定法(Serady公司,印第安纳州印第安纳波利斯),以及一种直接免疫荧光测定法,即Merifluor隐孢子虫试剂盒(Meridian诊断公司,俄亥俄州辛辛那提),与抗酸金胺染色法用于检测隐孢子虫属。对近期一次水源性暴发期间从患者处收到的129份粪便标本进行了检测。当通过抗酸和免疫荧光染色可肉眼识别生物体,或者通过抗酸或免疫荧光染色可观察到生物体且两种酶免疫测定法均能检测到时,标本被视为阳性。最终阳性标本数为55份。没有一种单一方法能检测出所有55份阳性标本。其中,ProSpect和Color Vue检测出52份(敏感性为94.5%),金胺染色法和Merifluor检测出53份(敏感性为96.4%)。最终阴性标本数为74份。金胺染色法和ProSpect测定法均出现了1例假阳性结果。Color Vue和ProSpect测定法需要技术人员动手操作的时间最多。ProSpect测定法和Merifluor试剂盒最易于操作。抗酸染色难以解读。Merifluor试剂盒最易于判读,适用于批量和单份检测。总体而言,由于酶免疫测定法试剂成本高且需要技术人员动手操作的时间长,金胺染色法和Merifluor检测法比两种酶免疫测定法更可取。尽管Merifluor成本较高,但金胺染色涂片难以解读使得Merifluor成为更理想的检测方法。我们得出结论,所有测试方法在检测隐孢子虫属方面的敏感性和特异性相同。易用性、批量检测的适应性和成本是确定首选方法的重要标准。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
spp. diagnosis and research in the 21 century.21世纪的物种诊断与研究。
Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2021 Aug 20;24:e00131. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2021.e00131. eCollection 2021 Sep.

本文引用的文献

8
Routine parasitological examination for Cryptosporidium.隐孢子虫的常规寄生虫学检查。
J Infect Dis. 1986 Aug;154(2):369-70. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.2.369.
9
Ophthalmia neonatorum.新生儿眼炎
J Infect Dis. 1987 Jul;156(1):249-50. doi: 10.1093/infdis/156.1.249-a.

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