首页> 外文OA文献 >Laboratory diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. 2. Comparison of methods for the direct detection of specific antigen or nucleic acid sequences in respiratory exudates.
【2h】

Laboratory diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. 2. Comparison of methods for the direct detection of specific antigen or nucleic acid sequences in respiratory exudates.

机译:肺炎支原体感染的实验室诊断。 2.比较直接检测呼吸道分泌物中特定抗原或核酸序列的方法。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The efficiency of the direct detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in respiratory exudates by an antigen capture, indirect enzyme immunoassay (Ag-EIA), has been compared with its detection with a cDNA probe ('Gen-Probe assay') directed against the specific ribosomal RNA sequences of the organism ('Mycoplasma pneumoniae Rapid Diagnostic System', Gen-Probe, San Diego, California). Both assays showed excellent specificity against a range of mycoplasma species suspended in negative nasopharyngeal aspirates; only M. pneumoniae and M. genitalium reacted. In experiments with graded doses of viable M. pneumoniae cells suspended in negative nasopharyngeal aspirate, the Gen-Probe assay was more sensitive than Ag-EIA; detection limits were respectively 2 X 10(3) c.f.u./ml (3.2 X 10(5) genomes) and 2.5 X 10(4) c.f.u./ml (4 X 10(6) genomes); detection levels 10-100 times less sensitive than culture. The two assays were also tested on nasopharyngeal aspirates or sputum specimens from 90 patients with respiratory infection; 67 of these were culture- or seronegative for M. pneumoniae and 23 were culture- or seropositive. Ag-EIA detected 21 (91%) of the latter but the Gen-Probe assay detected only 5 (22%). Both assays were negative with the 67 culture-/sero-negatives; there were no Gen-Probe assay positive/Ag-EIA negatives. Overall, it is concluded that although Ag-EIA and the Gen-Probe assay are effective substitutes for culture as a diagnostic procedure, there is a significant problem with samples which are culture-negative and from patients who have good serological evidence of current infection. Possible reasons for the disparity between the two assays are advanced.
机译:通过抗原捕获,间接酶免疫测定(Ag-EIA)直接检测呼吸道分泌物中肺炎支原体的效率已与针对特定核糖体RNA的cDNA探针('Gen-Probe测定')的检测进行了比较生物体的序列(“肺炎支原体快速诊断系统”,Gen-Probe,圣地亚哥,加利福尼亚)。两种测定均显示出对悬浮在阴性鼻咽抽吸物中的多种支原体物种的优异特异性。只有肺炎支原体和生殖器支原体发生反应。在用分级剂量的活性肺炎支原体细胞悬浮于阴性鼻咽抽吸物中的实验中,Gen-Probe分析比Ag-EIA更为灵敏。检测限分别为2 X 10(3)c.f.u./ml(3.2 X 10(5)基因组)和2.5 X 10(4)c.f.u./ml(4 X 10(6)基因组);检测水平比培养物低10-100倍。还对来自90例呼吸道感染患者的鼻咽抽吸物或痰标本进行了两种检测方法的检测。其中67例是肺炎支原体的培养阳性或血清阴性,而23例是培养阳性或血清阳性。 Ag-EIA检测到21种(91%),但Gen-Probe分析仅检测到5种(22%)。两种方法的67个培养物/血清阴性均为阴性。没有Gen-Probe检测阳性/ Ag-EIA阴性。总的来说,可以得出结论,尽管Ag-EIA和Gen-Probe测定法可作为培养的有效替代品作为诊断程序,但培养阴性的样品以及来自具有当前感染的良好血清学证据的患者仍存在重大问题。提出了两种检测方法之间差异的可能原因。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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