Efstratiou A, Engler K H, Dawes C S, Sesardic D
Respiratory and Systemic Infection Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, London NW9 5HT, United Kingdom.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Nov;36(11):3173-7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.11.3173-3177.1998.
We have compared molecular, immunochemical, and cytotoxic assays for the detection of diphtheria toxin from 55 isolates of Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Corynebacterium ulcerans originally isolated in five different countries. The suitabilities and accuracies of these assays for the laboratory diagnosis of diphtheria were compared and evaluated against the "gold standard" in vivo methods. The in vivo and Vero cell cytotoxicity assays were accurate in their abilities to detect diphtheria toxin but were time-consuming; however, the cytotoxicity assay is a suitable in vitro alternative to the in vivo virulence test. There was complete concordance between all the phenotypic methods. Genotypic tests based upon PCR were rapid; however, PCR must be used with caution because some isolates of C. diphtheriae possessed toxin genes but failed to express a biologically active toxin. Therefore, phenotypic confirmation of toxigenicity for the microbiological diagnosis of diphtheria is recommended.
我们比较了分子、免疫化学和细胞毒性检测方法，用于检测最初从五个不同国家分离出的55株白喉棒状杆菌和溃疡棒状杆菌中的白喉毒素。将这些检测方法对白喉实验室诊断的适用性和准确性与“金标准”体内方法进行了比较和评估。体内和Vero细胞细胞毒性检测在检测白喉毒素的能力方面是准确的，但耗时较长；然而，细胞毒性检测是一种适用于体外的体内毒力测试替代方法。所有表型方法之间完全一致。基于PCR的基因检测方法快速；然而，使用PCR时必须谨慎，因为一些白喉棒状杆菌分离株拥有毒素基因，但未能表达具有生物活性的毒素。因此，建议对白喉进行微生物学诊断时进行产毒性的表型确认。
