法国丙型肝炎病毒血清分型与基因分型的比较

Clinical and diagnostic virology Pub Date : 1997-02-01 DOI:10.1016/S0928-0197(96)00266-8

Sandrine Castelain , Patricia Zawadzki , Hafida Khorsi , Jean-Pierre Darchis , Dominique Capron , Jean-Marie Sueur , François Eb , Gilles Duverlie

{"title":"法国丙型肝炎病毒血清分型与基因分型的比较","authors":"Sandrine Castelain , Patricia Zawadzki , Hafida Khorsi , Jean-Pierre Darchis , Dominique Capron , Jean-Marie Sueur , François Eb , Gilles Duverlie","doi":"10.1016/S0928-0197(96)00266-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) serotyping has been proposed as an alternative assay to determine the respective genotype as it is more rapid, simple and less expensive than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based typing methods.Objectives: A serotyping assay was compared with a genotyping assay to determine the infecting hepatitis C virus type in chronically HCV infected patients eligible for interferon therapy.Study design: An enzyme immunoassay (HC01, Murex™) was tested to identify HCV types 1, 2 and 3 specific antibodies in 134 PCR-positive sera from chronically infected patients which had been previously genotyped by a reverse hybridization assay (INNO-LiPA HCV I, Innogenetics). Respectively nine and seven sera were from HIV-seropositive and hemodialysis patients. Unreactive sera and those with discrepant results were retested by a new version (HC02) extended to types 4, 5 and 6.Results: The distribution frequency of HCV genotypes was subtype 1a, 16.4%; subtype 1b, 46.3%; subtype 2a, 7.5%; subtype 3a, 20.9%; type 4, 4.5%; type 5, 0.7%; and co-infections, 3.7%. Among all the patients, 95% were of type 1, 2 or 3. The antibody reactivities of hemodialysis (<math><mtext>1</mtext><mtext>7</mtext></math>; P < 0.05) and HIV-seropositive patients (<math><mtext>4</mtext><mtext>9</mtext></math>; P = 0.06) were lower than for the patients seen at the hepatology unit (<math><mtext>87</mtext><mtext>118</mtext></math>). For these latter patients, the serotyping assay was interpretable in 71% and concordant in 64% of the samples with the genotyping assay. Out of the 84 samples with interpretable results, 75 sera were correctly serotyped (89% specificity). The two mixed results obtained by serotyping did not correspond to genotype coinfections (n = 3) and reciprocally. Six discrepancies were ruled out by the new assay, but the 2 untypeable sera remained unsolved, and four out of six sera with genotype 4 were serotyped as type 5.Conclusions: Serotyping could be an attractive approach if the reactivity was improved and the subtyping possible.</div>","PeriodicalId":79479,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and diagnostic virology","volume":"7 3","pages":"Pages 159-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0928-0197(96)00266-8","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of hepatitis C virus serotyping and genotyping in French patients\",\"authors\":\"Sandrine Castelain , Patricia Zawadzki , Hafida Khorsi , Jean-Pierre Darchis , Dominique Capron , Jean-Marie Sueur , François Eb , Gilles Duverlie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0928-0197(96)00266-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) serotyping has been proposed as an alternative assay to determine the respective genotype as it is more rapid, simple and less expensive than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based typing methods.Objectives: A serotyping assay was compared with a genotyping assay to determine the infecting hepatitis C virus type in chronically HCV infected patients eligible for interferon therapy.Study design: An enzyme immunoassay (HC01, Murex™) was tested to identify HCV types 1, 2 and 3 specific antibodies in 134 PCR-positive sera from chronically infected patients which had been previously genotyped by a reverse hybridization assay (INNO-LiPA HCV I, Innogenetics). Respectively nine and seven sera were from HIV-seropositive and hemodialysis patients. Unreactive sera and those with discrepant results were retested by a new version (HC02) extended to types 4, 5 and 6.Results: The distribution frequency of HCV genotypes was subtype 1a, 16.4%; subtype 1b, 46.3%; subtype 2a, 7.5%; subtype 3a, 20.9%; type 4, 4.5%; type 5, 0.7%; and co-infections, 3.7%. Among all the patients, 95% were of type 1, 2 or 3. The antibody reactivities of hemodialysis (<math><mtext>1</mtext><mtext>7</mtext></math>; P < 0.05) and HIV-seropositive patients (<math><mtext>4</mtext><mtext>9</mtext></math>; P = 0.06) were lower than for the patients seen at the hepatology unit (<math><mtext>87</mtext><mtext>118</mtext></math>). For these latter patients, the serotyping assay was interpretable in 71% and concordant in 64% of the samples with the genotyping assay. Out of the 84 samples with interpretable results, 75 sera were correctly serotyped (89% specificity). The two mixed results obtained by serotyping did not correspond to genotype coinfections (n = 3) and reciprocally. Six discrepancies were ruled out by the new assay, but the 2 untypeable sera remained unsolved, and four out of six sera with genotype 4 were serotyped as type 5.Conclusions: Serotyping could be an attractive approach if the reactivity was improved and the subtyping possible.</div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and diagnostic virology\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 159-165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0928-0197(96)00266-8\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and diagnostic virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928019796002668\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and diagnostic virology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928019796002668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)血清分型已被提出作为确定各自基因型的替代检测方法，因为它比基于聚合酶链反应(PCR)的分型方法更快速、简单且更便宜。目的:将血清分型试验与基因分型试验进行比较，以确定适合干扰素治疗的慢性HCV感染患者的感染丙型肝炎病毒类型。研究设计:采用酶免疫分析法(HC01, Murex™)在134例慢性感染患者的pcr阳性血清中鉴定HCV 1型、2型和3型特异性抗体，这些患者之前已通过反向杂交法(Innogenetics的INNO-LiPA HCV I型)进行基因分型。hiv血清阳性和血液透析患者血清分别为9份和7份。无反应的血清和结果不一致的血清用新版本(hco2)重新测试，扩展到4、5和6型。结果:HCV基因型分布频率为1a亚型，占16.4%;1b亚型占46.3%;2a亚型，7.5%;3a亚型占20.9%;4型，4.5%;5型，0.7%;合并感染占3.7%。其中95%为1、2、3型。血液透析患者的抗体反应性(17;P & lt;0.05)和hiv血清阳性患者(49;P = 0.06)低于在肝病科就诊的患者(87118)。对于后一类患者，71%的血清分型分析结果可解释，64%的样本与基因分型分析结果一致。在84份结果可解释的样本中，75份血清分型正确(特异性89%)。血清分型得到的两种混合结果不对应基因型共感染(n = 3)，且相互对应。新检测排除了6个差异，但2个无法分型的血清仍未解决，6个基因型为4的血清中有4个血清分型为5型。结论:血清分型可能是一种有吸引力的方法，如果反应性提高，亚型可能。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Comparison of hepatitis C virus serotyping and genotyping in French patients

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) serotyping has been proposed as an alternative assay to determine the respective genotype as it is more rapid, simple and less expensive than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based typing methods.

Objectives: A serotyping assay was compared with a genotyping assay to determine the infecting hepatitis C virus type in chronically HCV infected patients eligible for interferon therapy.

Study design: An enzyme immunoassay (HC01, Murex^™) was tested to identify HCV types 1, 2 and 3 specific antibodies in 134 PCR-positive sera from chronically infected patients which had been previously genotyped by a reverse hybridization assay (INNO-LiPA HCV I, Innogenetics). Respectively nine and seven sera were from HIV-seropositive and hemodialysis patients. Unreactive sera and those with discrepant results were retested by a new version (HC02) extended to types 4, 5 and 6.

Results: The distribution frequency of HCV genotypes was subtype 1a, 16.4%; subtype 1b, 46.3%; subtype 2a, 7.5%; subtype 3a, 20.9%; type 4, 4.5%; type 5, 0.7%; and co-infections, 3.7%. Among all the patients, 95% were of type 1, 2 or 3. The antibody reactivities of hemodialysis ( $17$ ; P < 0.05) and HIV-seropositive patients ( $49$ ; P = 0.06) were lower than for the patients seen at the hepatology unit ( $87118$ ). For these latter patients, the serotyping assay was interpretable in 71% and concordant in 64% of the samples with the genotyping assay. Out of the 84 samples with interpretable results, 75 sera were correctly serotyped (89% specificity). The two mixed results obtained by serotyping did not correspond to genotype coinfections (n = 3) and reciprocally. Six discrepancies were ruled out by the new assay, but the 2 untypeable sera remained unsolved, and four out of six sera with genotype 4 were serotyped as type 5.

Conclusions: Serotyping could be an attractive approach if the reactivity was improved and the subtyping possible.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical and diagnostic virology

自引率

0.00%

发文量