培养法、细胞毒素法、两种酶联免疫吸附法及聚合酶链反应在艰难梭菌相关疾病实验室诊断中的比较

A.J. Langley, K. Prime, J.P. Burnie
{"title":"培养法、细胞毒素法、两种酶联免疫吸附法及聚合酶链反应在艰难梭菌相关疾病实验室诊断中的比较","authors":"A.J. Langley,&nbsp;K. Prime,&nbsp;J.P. Burnie","doi":"10.1016/0888-0786(95)97898-F","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Two hundred faecal specimens submitted for <em>Clostridium difficile</em> testing were examined for: presence of <em>C. difficile</em> by culture, cytotoxin activity in cell tissue culture, detection of toxin A by Premier enzyme immunoassay (EIA), detection of toxins A and B by Cytoclone EIA, and for the presence of gene sequences encoding toxins A and B by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Sixty-three (31.5%) were positive in one or more tests of which 33 (16.5%) were positive in all tests. Sensitivities and specificities were respectively: culture 97%, 94.5%; cytotoxin assay 94.5%, 97%; Premier 100%, 97.5%; Cytoclone 100%, 97.5% and PCR of toxin genes A and B (which gave identical results) 97% and 96.5%. EIA gave the best results achievable within one day. Culture failed to distinguish toxigenic from non-toxigenic strains, while PCR failed to prove if toxigenic strains were producing toxin <em>in vivo</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101161,"journal":{"name":"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease","volume":"7 3","pages":"Pages 135-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0888-0786(95)97898-F","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of culture, cytotoxin assay, two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and the polymerase chain reaction in the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated disease\",\"authors\":\"A.J. Langley,&nbsp;K. Prime,&nbsp;J.P. Burnie\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0888-0786(95)97898-F\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Two hundred faecal specimens submitted for <em>Clostridium difficile</em> testing were examined for: presence of <em>C. difficile</em> by culture, cytotoxin activity in cell tissue culture, detection of toxin A by Premier enzyme immunoassay (EIA), detection of toxins A and B by Cytoclone EIA, and for the presence of gene sequences encoding toxins A and B by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Sixty-three (31.5%) were positive in one or more tests of which 33 (16.5%) were positive in all tests. Sensitivities and specificities were respectively: culture 97%, 94.5%; cytotoxin assay 94.5%, 97%; Premier 100%, 97.5%; Cytoclone 100%, 97.5% and PCR of toxin genes A and B (which gave identical results) 97% and 96.5%. EIA gave the best results achievable within one day. Culture failed to distinguish toxigenic from non-toxigenic strains, while PCR failed to prove if toxigenic strains were producing toxin <em>in vivo</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 135-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0888-0786(95)97898-F\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Serodiagnosis and Immunotherapy in Infectious Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088807869597898F\",\"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/088807869597898F","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

对200份提交的粪便标本进行艰难梭菌检测:培养中是否存在艰难梭菌,细胞组织培养中细胞毒素的活性,Premier酶免疫法(EIA)检测毒素A,细胞克隆法(EIA)检测毒素A和毒素B,以及聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测毒素A和毒素B的基因序列。63例(31.5%)在一项或多项检查中呈阳性,其中33例(16.5%)在所有检查中均呈阳性。敏感性和特异性分别为:培养97%,94.5%;细胞毒素检测94.5%,97%;总理100%,97.5%;细胞克隆100%,97.5%,毒素基因A和B的PCR结果相同,分别为97%和96.5%。EIA在一天内给出了最好的结果。培养不能区分出产毒株和非产毒株,而PCR不能证明产毒株是否在体内产生毒素。
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 culture, cytotoxin assay, two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and the polymerase chain reaction in the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile-associated disease

Two hundred faecal specimens submitted for Clostridium difficile testing were examined for: presence of C. difficile by culture, cytotoxin activity in cell tissue culture, detection of toxin A by Premier enzyme immunoassay (EIA), detection of toxins A and B by Cytoclone EIA, and for the presence of gene sequences encoding toxins A and B by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Sixty-three (31.5%) were positive in one or more tests of which 33 (16.5%) were positive in all tests. Sensitivities and specificities were respectively: culture 97%, 94.5%; cytotoxin assay 94.5%, 97%; Premier 100%, 97.5%; Cytoclone 100%, 97.5% and PCR of toxin genes A and B (which gave identical results) 97% and 96.5%. EIA gave the best results achievable within one day. Culture failed to distinguish toxigenic from non-toxigenic strains, while PCR failed to prove if toxigenic strains were producing toxin in vivo.

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