...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of two assay methods for patterns of adherence to HEp-2 cells of Escherichia coli from patients with diarrhea.
【24h】

Comparison of two assay methods for patterns of adherence to HEp-2 cells of Escherichia coli from patients with diarrhea.

机译:两种腹泻患者对大肠杆菌HEp-2细胞粘附模式的检测方法的比较。

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

To determine whether methodological differences in the HEp-2 adherence assay could explain conflicting results of field studies, 244 strains of Escherichia coli from Mexican children with diarrhea were tested for patterns of adherence by the method used at the Center for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland (CVD), and at the Center for Infectious Diseases, University of Texas Medical School and School of Public Health (UTH). The CVD assay differentiated three phenotypes of adherent E. coli, including localized, diffuse, or aggregative adherence (LA, DA, or AA, respectively). There was agreement on pattern of adherence in 241 of the 244 strains (98.8%) tested by the CVD method in both Baltimore and Houston, and AA+ was the most common phenotype (28.5% of isolates). Among these isolates, the UTH assay detected only two adherent phenotypes (LA and DA), since it did not distinguish the AA pattern. The LA+ strains detected by each assay were compared for positivity with the enteropathogenic E. coli adherence factor (EAF) gene probe. Of the 16 strains LA+ by the CVD method, 100% were EAF+; in contrast, only 11 of 22 strains LA+ by the UTH method were EAF+ (P = 0.00074). These results help explain why in pediatric field studies in Mexico where isolates were tested by the UTH method (J. J. Mathewson, R. A. Oberhelman, H. L. Dupont, F. J. de la Cabada, and E. V. Garibay, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25:1917-1919, 1987) LA+ strains often did not belong to enteropathogenic E. coli O serogroups and why the AA pattern was not observed; the opposite was found in studies of pediatric diarrhea in Chile in which the CVD assay was used (M. M. Levine, V. Prado, R. M. Robins-Browne, H. Lior, J. B. Kaper, S. Moseley, K. Gicquelais, J. P. Nataro, P. Vial, and B. Tall, J. Infect. Dis. 158:224-228, 1988). Since it appears that both assays identify E. coli strains associated with diarrheal illness, the genetic relationships among these strains should be examined in future studies.
机译:为了确定HEp-2粘附试验中的方法学差异是否可以解释田野研究的矛盾结果,通过马里兰大学疫苗开发中心使用的方法测试了来自墨西哥腹泻儿童的244株大肠杆菌的粘附模式(CVD),以及德克萨斯大学医学院和公共卫生学院(UTH)的传染病中心。 CVD分析区分了三种粘附的大肠杆菌表型,包括局部粘附,弥散粘附或聚集粘附(分别为LA,DA或AA)。在巴尔的摩和休斯顿,通过CVD方法测试的244株菌株中有241株(98.8%)的粘附模式一致,其中AA +是最常见的表型(分离株的28.5%)。在这些分离株中,UTH检测法仅检测到两种粘附的表型(LA和DA),因为它无法区分AA模式。将每种测定法检测到的LA +菌株与肠致病性大肠杆菌粘附因子(EAF)基因探针进行阳性比较。通过CVD法测定的16种LA +菌株中,EAF +为100%。相比之下,采用UTH方法的22株LA +菌株中只有11株为EAF +(P = 0.00074)。这些结果有助于解释为什么在墨西哥的小儿野外研究中,通过UTH方法测试了分离株(JJ Mathewson,RA Oberhelman,HL Dupont,FJ de la Cabada和EV Garibay,J. Clin。Microbiol。25:1917-1919, 1987年)LA +菌株通常不属于肠致病性大肠杆菌O血清群,以及为什么未观察到AA型。在智利使用CVD测定的小儿腹泻的研究中发现了相反的情况(MM Levine,V.Prado,RM Robins-Browne,H.Lior,JB Kaper,S.Moseley,K.Gicquelais,JP Nataro,P Vial,和B.Tall,J.Infect.Dis.158:224-228,1988)。由于两种检测方法似乎都可以鉴定出与腹泻病有关的大肠杆菌,因此在以后的研究中应检查这些菌株之间的遗传关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号