{"title":"内部酶联免疫吸附试验（ELISA）与六种商业 ELISA 检测百日咳博德特氏菌抗体的比较。","authors":"Waldemar Rastawicki","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.107011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are currently the method of choice for the serodiagnosis of pertussis and play a key role in the diagnosis of pertussis in adolescents and adults, as well as in epidemiological studies. In the present study, the in-house developed indirect ELISA was comparatively evaluated with six commercial kits from various manufacturers. Antipertussis antibodies were measured in 40 serum samples from patients with clinical symptoms of respiratory tract infection, in two WHO standards, and in seven human ECDC control sera. IgA and IgG antibodies were detected at a diagnostically significant level by different ELISA kits of 5.0% to 27.0% and 12.0% to 70.0% of patients' sera, appropriately. The analysis of results carried out with six commercial kits showed only 17.5% consistent results in class IgG (either clearly positive or negative). The average percentage of errors in the level of antibodies determined in the control samples, reference serum samples, differed quite significantly and ranged from 9.5% to 35.4% depending on the kit. This poor correlation of the results obtained on various serological tests intended for the serodiagnosis of pertussis may cause very serious diagnostic problems, especially when examining a serum sample obtained once during the course of the disease.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"224 ","pages":"Article 107011"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and six commercial ELISAs for Detection of antibodies to Bordetella pertussis\",\"authors\":\"Waldemar Rastawicki\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.107011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are currently the method of choice for the serodiagnosis of pertussis and play a key role in the diagnosis of pertussis in adolescents and adults, as well as in epidemiological studies. In the present study, the in-house developed indirect ELISA was comparatively evaluated with six commercial kits from various manufacturers. Antipertussis antibodies were measured in 40 serum samples from patients with clinical symptoms of respiratory tract infection, in two WHO standards, and in seven human ECDC control sera. IgA and IgG antibodies were detected at a diagnostically significant level by different ELISA kits of 5.0% to 27.0% and 12.0% to 70.0% of patients' sera, appropriately. The analysis of results carried out with six commercial kits showed only 17.5% consistent results in class IgG (either clearly positive or negative). The average percentage of errors in the level of antibodies determined in the control samples, reference serum samples, differed quite significantly and ranged from 9.5% to 35.4% depending on the kit. This poor correlation of the results obtained on various serological tests intended for the serodiagnosis of pertussis may cause very serious diagnostic problems, especially when examining a serum sample obtained once during the course of the disease.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"volume\":\"224 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107011\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224001234\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224001234","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and six commercial ELISAs for Detection of antibodies to Bordetella pertussis
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are currently the method of choice for the serodiagnosis of pertussis and play a key role in the diagnosis of pertussis in adolescents and adults, as well as in epidemiological studies. In the present study, the in-house developed indirect ELISA was comparatively evaluated with six commercial kits from various manufacturers. Antipertussis antibodies were measured in 40 serum samples from patients with clinical symptoms of respiratory tract infection, in two WHO standards, and in seven human ECDC control sera. IgA and IgG antibodies were detected at a diagnostically significant level by different ELISA kits of 5.0% to 27.0% and 12.0% to 70.0% of patients' sera, appropriately. The analysis of results carried out with six commercial kits showed only 17.5% consistent results in class IgG (either clearly positive or negative). The average percentage of errors in the level of antibodies determined in the control samples, reference serum samples, differed quite significantly and ranged from 9.5% to 35.4% depending on the kit. This poor correlation of the results obtained on various serological tests intended for the serodiagnosis of pertussis may cause very serious diagnostic problems, especially when examining a serum sample obtained once during the course of the disease.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach.
All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
