首页> 外文期刊>Clinical microbiology and infection: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases >Detection of toxin production in Clostridium difficile strains by three different methods.
【24h】

Detection of toxin production in Clostridium difficile strains by three different methods.

机译:通过三种不同的方法检测艰难梭菌菌株中的毒素产生。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare two immunoassays for detection of toxins produced in vitro by isolates of Clostridium difficile with the standard tissue culture assay, to help in the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhoea. METHODS: Toxin production was investigated in 42 strains of C. difficile of various serotypes, ribotypes and S-protein types. These included strains from our laboratory collection, strains freshly isolated from stool specimens of patients suspected of suffering from C. difficile-associated disease or of carrying it asymptomatically, and one reference strain (NCTC 11223). Toxin was assayed by (i) a rapid slide immunoassay (C. difficile toxin A test, Clearview, Oxoid), (ii) an enzyme-linked microplate immunoassay (C. difficile toxin A/B test, Techlab), and (iii) a tissue culture assay. The rapid slide assay and the enzyme immunoassay were performed according to the manufacturers' recommendations. The tissue culture assay was performed using Vero cells. RESULTS: Thirty of the 42 strains (71%) were shown to be positive for toxin A by the slide immunoassay and 34 of the strains (81%) were found to be toxin A/B producers by the enzyme immunoassay. The same 34 strains that were positive in the enzyme immunoassay also produced toxin B (cytotoxin) in the tissue culture assay. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the rapid slide immunoassay method were calculated to be 88.2%, 100.0%, 100.0% and 66.7%, respectively, when compared to tissue culture assay results as the reference method. These values for the enzyme immunoassay method were all 100.0%. In this study eight strains were found to be non-toxin-producing by all methods. It is possible that there were four strains that only produced toxin B (A- B+), and were missed by the rapid A-only assay. CONCLUSIONS: We can recommend the use of the Techlab A + B enzyme immunoassay for the detection of toxin production by C. difficile strains because of its high sensitivity and specificity, its ease of use, and its capability of detecting both A- and B-type toxins.
机译:目的:比较两种用于检测艰难梭菌分离物体外产生的毒素的免疫分析方法与标准组织培养方法的比较,以帮助诊断艰难梭菌相关性腹泻。方法:调查了42种不同血清型,核糖型和S蛋白类型的艰难梭菌菌株的毒素产生。这些包括从我们实验室收集的菌株,从疑似艰难梭菌相关疾病或无症状携带的患者粪便标本中新鲜分离的菌株,以及一种参考菌株(NCTC 11223)。通过(i)快速玻片免疫测定法(艰难梭菌毒素A测试,Clearview,Oxoid),(ii)酶联微孔板免疫测定法(艰难梭菌毒素A / B测试,Techlab)和(iii)测定毒素组织培养测定。根据制造商的建议进行快速玻片测定和酶免疫测定。使用Vero细胞进行组织培养测定。结果:通过载玻片免疫测定法显示42株菌株中有30株(71%)为毒素A阳性,通过酶免疫测定法发现34株(81%)是毒素A / B产生者。在酶免疫测定中呈阳性的相同的34个菌株在组织培养测定中也产生毒素B(细胞毒素)。与作为参考方法的组织培养测定结果相比,快速玻片免疫测定方法的敏感性,特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值分别计算为88.2%,100.0%,100.0%和66.7%。酶免疫测定法的这些值均为100.0%。在这项研究中,发现八种菌株在所有方法中均不产生毒素。可能有四种菌株仅产生毒素B(AB +),而仅由A进行的快速检测却漏掉了。结论:我们可以推荐使用Techlab A + B酶免疫法检测艰难梭菌菌株产生的毒素,因为它具有很高的灵敏性和特异性,易用性以及同时检测A-和B-的能力。输入毒素。

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