商用酶联免疫吸附测定试剂盒和中和试验评估麻疹病毒体液免疫的比较

Maureen G. Friedman , Svetlana Romanova , Aharon Galil , Batia Sarov , Ron Dagan
{"title":"商用酶联免疫吸附测定试剂盒和中和试验评估麻疹病毒体液免疫的比较","authors":"Maureen G. Friedman ,&nbsp;Svetlana Romanova ,&nbsp;Aharon Galil ,&nbsp;Batia Sarov ,&nbsp;Ron Dagan","doi":"10.1016/S0888-0786(96)01064-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Efficient control of measles apparently requires reimmunization of susceptibles. The classic techniques used for estimation of measles susceptibility, neutralization and hemeagglutination inhibition, are neither convenient nor exactly comparable when carried out in different laboratories. We have compared a one-dilution commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) to a classic neutralization test with respect to its ability to designate susceptibles as well as its ability to indicate post-reimmunization rises in measles antibody levels. A group of controls not deemed to require reimmunization was tested in parallel. The results indicate that the simple and standardized commercial assay may be able to substitute for the classic assays, which can only be carried out in specialized laboratories, when simple screening for persons with low levels of antibodies to measles or when evaluations of responses to (re)immunizations are required.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101161,"journal":{"name":"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 131-135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0888-0786(96)01064-5","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of a commercial ELISA kit and a neutralization assay for assessment of humoral immunity to measles virus\",\"authors\":\"Maureen G. Friedman ,&nbsp;Svetlana Romanova ,&nbsp;Aharon Galil ,&nbsp;Batia Sarov ,&nbsp;Ron Dagan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0888-0786(96)01064-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Efficient control of measles apparently requires reimmunization of susceptibles. The classic techniques used for estimation of measles susceptibility, neutralization and hemeagglutination inhibition, are neither convenient nor exactly comparable when carried out in different laboratories. We have compared a one-dilution commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) to a classic neutralization test with respect to its ability to designate susceptibles as well as its ability to indicate post-reimmunization rises in measles antibody levels. A group of controls not deemed to require reimmunization was tested in parallel. The results indicate that the simple and standardized commercial assay may be able to substitute for the classic assays, which can only be carried out in specialized laboratories, when simple screening for persons with low levels of antibodies to measles or when evaluations of responses to (re)immunizations are required.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 131-135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0888-0786(96)01064-5\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888078696010645\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888078696010645","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

有效控制麻疹显然需要对易感人群进行再免疫。用于估计麻疹易感性的经典技术,即中和和血凝抑制,在不同的实验室进行时既不方便也不完全可比。我们比较了一倍稀释商业酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)与经典中和试验在其指定易感人群的能力以及其指示麻疹再免疫后抗体水平上升的能力方面的差异。同时对一组被认为不需要重新免疫的对照组进行了测试。结果表明,当对麻疹抗体水平低的人进行简单筛查或需要评估对(再)免疫的反应时,简单和标准化的商业分析可能能够替代只能在专门实验室进行的经典分析。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of a commercial ELISA kit and a neutralization assay for assessment of humoral immunity to measles virus

Efficient control of measles apparently requires reimmunization of susceptibles. The classic techniques used for estimation of measles susceptibility, neutralization and hemeagglutination inhibition, are neither convenient nor exactly comparable when carried out in different laboratories. We have compared a one-dilution commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) to a classic neutralization test with respect to its ability to designate susceptibles as well as its ability to indicate post-reimmunization rises in measles antibody levels. A group of controls not deemed to require reimmunization was tested in parallel. The results indicate that the simple and standardized commercial assay may be able to substitute for the classic assays, which can only be carried out in specialized laboratories, when simple screening for persons with low levels of antibodies to measles or when evaluations of responses to (re)immunizations are required.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Subject index Volume contents Author index The value of ELISA vs. negative Coombs findings in the serodiagnosis of human brucellosis Detection of toxoplasma-specific antibody in human saliva using conventional assays
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1