five

Comparison of Two Commercial Microimmunofluorescence Kits and an Enzyme Immunoassay Kit for Detection of Serum Immunoglobulin G Antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae

收藏
PubMed Central2026-05-16 收录
下载链接:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC96106/
下载链接
链接失效反馈
官方服务:
资源简介:
We compared the MRL and the Labsystems Chlamydia pneumoniae microimmunofluorescence (MIF) immunoglobulin G (IgG) kits and the Labsystems enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kit in a blinded study of 83 serum samples in which we evaluated titers, cross-reactivity to other species, and reproducibility. There was no statistically significant difference between the MRL and the Labsystems MIF kits in the endpoint titers of IgG antibody to C. pneumoniae. The correlation between the results obtained with these two MIF kits was excellent (r = 0.95; P = 0.001). The cross-reactivity of the C. pneumoniae-positive sera with C. trachomatis- and C. psittaci-positive sera was assessed for each MIF kit. For C. pneumoniae-positive sera with titers of ≥32, the Labsystems MIF kit exhibited more cross-reactivity to C. psittaci than the MRL kit did. The values obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit represented single dilutions of serum specimens expressed as enzymeimmuno units on a continuous scale. The results obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit correlated moderately well with those obtained with each MIF kit when they were compared for their abilities to detect IgG antibodies to C. pneumoniae (for the MRL MIF kit, r = 0.79 [P = 0.001]; for the Labsystems MIF kit, r = 0.78 [P = 0.001]). The results obtained with the commercial MRL and Labsystems MIF kits and the Labsystems EIA kit tested were reproducible; and the kits were standardized, had quality control reagents, and are suitable for detection of C. pneumoniae antibodies in serum and for use in interlaboratory studies. Validation of the use of these kits for clinical diagnosis still needs further evaluation.
提供机构:
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
二维码
社区交流群
二维码
科研交流群
商业服务