Suppr超能文献

不同丙型肝炎病毒基因分型和血清学分型检测方法的评估与比较

Evaluation and comparison of different hepatitis C virus genotyping and serotyping assays.

作者信息

Lee J H, Roth W K, Zeuzem S

机构信息

Medizinische Klinik II, Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.

出版信息

J Hepatol. 1997 May;26(5):1001-9. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(97)80108-0.

Abstract

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

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。

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

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