Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Laboratory diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection: 2. Comparison of methods for the direct detection of specific antigen or nucleic acid sequences in respiratory exudates|
|Citation:||Epidemiology and Infection, 1988; 101(3):685-694|
|Publisher:||Cambridge University Press|
|R. Harris, B. P. Marmion, G. Varkanis, T. Kok, B. Lunn, and J. Martin|
|Abstract:||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.|
|Rights:||© Cambridge University Press 1988|
|Appears in Collections:||Aurora harvest 8|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.