Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.
Identifieur interne : 005D18 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 005D17; suivant : 005D19Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.
Auteurs : H J Zheng ; J A Fuhrman ; M. Xu ; W F Cheng ; M V Reddy ; W F PiessensSource :
- Chinese medical journal [ 0366-6999 ] ; 1990.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- chemical , analysis : Antigens, Helminth.
- immunology : Elephantiasis, Filarial, Wuchereria bancrofti.
- methods : Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay.
- Animals, Humans, Microfilariae.
Abstract
Dot-ELISA assay was compared with standard Sandwich ELISA in detecting parasite antigen in sera from patients with bancroftian filariasis. The same monoclonal antibody and the same serum samples were used in both assays. With Dot-ELISA, 67 of 70 serum samples from microfilaremic patients were positive at a dilution of 1:50. End titers ranged from 1:80 to 1:1 280. While with Sandwich ELISA, 64 of the 70 serum samples were positive at a dilution of 1:10. End titers ranged from 1:10 to 1:320. The specificity of both assays was over 91%, but their sensitivity was markedly different. Dot-ELISA could detect as little as 0.055 ng/ml microfilarial antigen added to normal human serum, whereas the lower limit of detection by Sandwich-ELISA was 10 ng/ml parasite antigen. An additional advantage of Dot-ELISA is that it does not require radioactivity or sophisticated equipment and, therefore, can be performed in virtually all filariasis-endemic areas.
PubMed: 2123770
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:2123770Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.</title><author><name sortKey="Zheng, H J" sort="Zheng, H J" uniqKey="Zheng H" first="H J" last="Zheng">H J Zheng</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Filariasis, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Guiyang.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Fuhrman, J A" sort="Fuhrman, J A" uniqKey="Fuhrman J" first="J A" last="Fuhrman">J A Fuhrman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Xu, M" sort="Xu, M" uniqKey="Xu M" first="M" last="Xu">M. Xu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cheng, W F" sort="Cheng, W F" uniqKey="Cheng W" first="W F" last="Cheng">W F Cheng</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reddy, M V" sort="Reddy, M V" uniqKey="Reddy M" first="M V" last="Reddy">M V Reddy</name></author><author><name sortKey="Piessens, W F" sort="Piessens, W F" uniqKey="Piessens W" first="W F" last="Piessens">W F Piessens</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="1990">1990</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:2123770</idno><idno type="pmid">2123770</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">005D18</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">005D18</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.</title><author><name sortKey="Zheng, H J" sort="Zheng, H J" uniqKey="Zheng H" first="H J" last="Zheng">H J Zheng</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Filariasis, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Guiyang.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Fuhrman, J A" sort="Fuhrman, J A" uniqKey="Fuhrman J" first="J A" last="Fuhrman">J A Fuhrman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Xu, M" sort="Xu, M" uniqKey="Xu M" first="M" last="Xu">M. Xu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cheng, W F" sort="Cheng, W F" uniqKey="Cheng W" first="W F" last="Cheng">W F Cheng</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reddy, M V" sort="Reddy, M V" uniqKey="Reddy M" first="M V" last="Reddy">M V Reddy</name></author><author><name sortKey="Piessens, W F" sort="Piessens, W F" uniqKey="Piessens W" first="W F" last="Piessens">W F Piessens</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Chinese medical journal</title><idno type="ISSN">0366-6999</idno><imprint><date when="1990" type="published">1990</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Antigens, Helminth (analysis)</term><term>Elephantiasis, Filarial (immunology)</term><term>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (methods)</term><term>Humans</term><term>Microfilariae</term><term>Wuchereria bancrofti (immunology)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="analysis" xml:lang="en"><term>Antigens, Helminth</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="immunology" xml:lang="en"><term>Elephantiasis, Filarial</term><term>Wuchereria bancrofti</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Humans</term><term>Microfilariae</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Dot-ELISA assay was compared with standard Sandwich ELISA in detecting parasite antigen in sera from patients with bancroftian filariasis. The same monoclonal antibody and the same serum samples were used in both assays. With Dot-ELISA, 67 of 70 serum samples from microfilaremic patients were positive at a dilution of 1:50. End titers ranged from 1:80 to 1:1 280. While with Sandwich ELISA, 64 of the 70 serum samples were positive at a dilution of 1:10. End titers ranged from 1:10 to 1:320. The specificity of both assays was over 91%, but their sensitivity was markedly different. Dot-ELISA could detect as little as 0.055 ng/ml microfilarial antigen added to normal human serum, whereas the lower limit of detection by Sandwich-ELISA was 10 ng/ml parasite antigen. An additional advantage of Dot-ELISA is that it does not require radioactivity or sophisticated equipment and, therefore, can be performed in virtually all filariasis-endemic areas.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">2123770</PMID><DateCreated><Year>1991</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>24</Day></DateCreated><DateCompleted><Year>1991</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>24</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2016</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>23</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0366-6999</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>103</Volume><Issue>9</Issue><PubDate><Year>1990</Year><Month>Sep</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Chinese medical journal</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Chin. Med. J.</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>709-12</MedlinePgn></Pagination><Abstract><AbstractText>Dot-ELISA assay was compared with standard Sandwich ELISA in detecting parasite antigen in sera from patients with bancroftian filariasis. The same monoclonal antibody and the same serum samples were used in both assays. With Dot-ELISA, 67 of 70 serum samples from microfilaremic patients were positive at a dilution of 1:50. End titers ranged from 1:80 to 1:1 280. While with Sandwich ELISA, 64 of the 70 serum samples were positive at a dilution of 1:10. End titers ranged from 1:10 to 1:320. The specificity of both assays was over 91%, but their sensitivity was markedly different. Dot-ELISA could detect as little as 0.055 ng/ml microfilarial antigen added to normal human serum, whereas the lower limit of detection by Sandwich-ELISA was 10 ng/ml parasite antigen. An additional advantage of Dot-ELISA is that it does not require radioactivity or sophisticated equipment and, therefore, can be performed in virtually all filariasis-endemic areas.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Zheng</LastName><ForeName>H J</ForeName><Initials>HJ</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Filariasis, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Guiyang.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Fuhrman</LastName><ForeName>J A</ForeName><Initials>JA</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Xu</LastName><ForeName>M</ForeName><Initials>M</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Cheng</LastName><ForeName>W F</ForeName><Initials>WF</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Reddy</LastName><ForeName>M V</ForeName><Initials>MV</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Piessens</LastName><ForeName>W F</ForeName><Initials>WF</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>China</Country><MedlineTA>Chin Med J (Engl)</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>7513795</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0366-6999</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D000947">Antigens, Helminth</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000947" MajorTopicYN="N">Antigens, Helminth</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000032" MajorTopicYN="Y">analysis</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004605" MajorTopicYN="N">Elephantiasis, Filarial</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000276" MajorTopicYN="Y">immunology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004797" MajorTopicYN="N">Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008842" MajorTopicYN="N">Microfilariae</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014958" MajorTopicYN="N">Wuchereria bancrofti</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000276" MajorTopicYN="Y">immunology</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>1990</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>1</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>1990</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>1</Day><Hour>0</Hour><Minute>1</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>1990</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>1</Day><Hour>0</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">2123770</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/LymphedemaV1/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005D18 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005D18 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sante
|area= LymphedemaV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:2123770
|texte= Comparison of Dot-ELISA with Sandwich ELISA in detecting circulating antigen in patients with bancroftian filariasis.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:2123770" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a LymphedemaV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |