Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens

肠道临床标本中腺病毒检测方法的比较

阅读:1

Abstract

Fecal samples submitted for virus examination over July 1990 to June 1991 from children < 3 years of age were examined by electron microscopy (EM), virus culture (VC), and enzyme immunoassay [EIA, group-reactive and adenovirus (Ad) 40/41 specific; Cambridge BioScience] to compare the detection rate of adenovirus from pediatric fecal specimens. Ad isolates of serotypes 1-7 grown in HEp-2 or primary rhesus monkey kidney cells were identified by neutralization. Graham 293 cell cultures were used only when specimens were found to be positive for Ad by EM, type-specific Ad40/41 EIA, and for isolates not identified by neutralization. Ads grown in 293 cells were identified by DNA restriction endonuclease analysis. Of the 1187 specimens examined, 105 (9%) were found to be positive for Ad. VC detected 93, while 12 additional positives were detected by EM or EIA. The relative sensitivity of VC, EIA, and EM for the 105 specimens was 89% (93), 45% (47), and 35% (37), respectively. Among the 105 positive specimens, enteric Ad, nonenteric Ad, and untypeable Ad were 28% (29), 65% (68), and 7% (8), respectively. Of 37 EM positives, 62% (23) were enteric Ad; 27% (10) were nonenteric including serotypes 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 31, with 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, and 1 isolates of each type positive, respectively; and 11% (4) were detectable only by EM. Five isolates were identified as variant of Ad 2(3), Ad 3(1) and Ad 31(1). Over a 1-year period, a single Ad41 variant strain was the most frequently detected enteric Ad in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。