Lee J H, Roth W K, Zeuzem S
Medizinische Klinik II, Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.
J Hepatol. 1997 May;26(5):1001-9. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(97)80108-0.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Evidence that the geno/subtype of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is predictive of the response to interferon-alpha therapy suggests that typing methods are clinically useful. In the present study, HCV isolates obtained from 74 patients with chronic hepatitis C were used to evaluate three genotyping and two serotyping assays.
The reverse hybridization assay and the DNA immunoassay are based on immobilized type-specific probes for the 5'-noncoding and the core region, respectively. A third genotyping assay utilized type-specific primers for amplification of the core region. Serotyping assays detect type-specific antibodies of the nonstructural-4 region (enzyme immunoassay) or of the core and nonstructural-4 region (recombinant immunoblot assay). Gold standard geno/subtyping of HCV isolates was performed by sequence and phylogenetic analysis of the nonstructural-5B region.
All genotyping systems amplified the respective target region of the HCV genome with high sensitivity. The reverse hybridization assay and the DNA immunoassay correctly identified HCV-1, -2, and -3. The DNA immunoassay misinterpreted all HCV-4 isolates as HCV-4 and -5 coinfection. In the type-specific amplification assay, coinfections of subtypes HCV-1a and HCV-3a with HCV-1b could not be excluded. The reverse hybridization assay misinterpreted 1/14 HCV-1a isolates as HCV-1h, and vice versa 3/36 HCV-1b isolates as HCV-1a. Furthermore, differentiation between HCV-2a and -2c was not possible using this assay. The DNA immunoassay correctly identified all HCV subtypes. The serotyping assays, recombinant immunoblot assay and enzyme immunoassay identified HCV-1, -2, and -3 in 93% and 89% of cases, respectively. HCV-4, however, could only be recognized by the enzyme immunoassay.
The reverse hybridization assay and the DNA immunoassay specifically identified HCV genotypes 1, 2, and 3, while crossreactivity occurred in the primer-specific amplification assay. The DNA immunoassay achieved the best performance in HCV subtyping. Both serotyping systems correctly identified HCV-1, -2, and -3 in about 90% of cases, but lack the possibility of subtyping.
背景/目的:丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)基因/亚型可预测α干扰素治疗反应的证据表明分型方法具有临床应用价值。在本研究中,从74例慢性丙型肝炎患者中获得的HCV分离株用于评估三种基因分型和两种血清学分型检测方法。
反向杂交检测和DNA免疫检测分别基于固定化的5'-非编码区和核心区的型特异性探针。第三种基因分型检测使用型特异性引物扩增核心区。血清学分型检测检测非结构-4区(酶免疫检测)或核心区和非结构-4区(重组免疫印迹检测)的型特异性抗体。通过对非结构-5B区进行序列和系统发育分析对HCV分离株进行金标准基因/亚型分型。
所有基因分型系统均以高灵敏度扩增HCV基因组的相应靶区域。反向杂交检测和DNA免疫检测正确鉴定出HCV-1、-2和-3。DNA免疫检测将所有HCV-4分离株误判为HCV-4和-5合并感染。在型特异性扩增检测中,不能排除HCV-1a和HCV-3a亚型与HCV-1b的合并感染。反向杂交检测将1/14例HCV-1a分离株误判为HCV-1h,反之,3/36例HCV-1b分离株误判为HCV-1a。此外,使用该检测方法无法区分HCV-2a和-2c。DNA免疫检测正确鉴定了所有HCV亚型。血清学分型检测,即重组免疫印迹检测和酶免疫检测,分别在93%和89%的病例中鉴定出HCV-1、-2和-3。然而,HCV-4只能通过酶免疫检测识别。
反向杂交检测和DNA免疫检测特异性鉴定出HCV基因型1、2和3,而引物特异性扩增检测中出现了交叉反应。DNA免疫检测在HCV亚型分型中表现最佳。两种血清学分型系统在约90%的病例中正确鉴定出HCV-1、-2和-3,但缺乏亚型分型的可能性。