RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 1986 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz |
Texto Completo: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02761986000200013 |
Resumo: | Two techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolaion in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory iliness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the originl nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the call suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-4_879cc72cb0003f3796ebd6ab14690263 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0074-02761986000200013 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-4 |
network_name_str |
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz |
spelling |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassayrespiratory syncytial virusrapid diagnosisimmunofluorescenceenzyme immunoassayTwo techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolaion in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory iliness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the originl nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the call suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible.Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Ministério da Saúde1986-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02761986000200013Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz v.81 n.2 1986reponame:Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruzinstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruzinstacron:FIOCRUZ10.1590/S0074-02761986000200013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSiqueira,Marilda M.Ferreira,VanjaNascimento,Jussara P.eng2020-04-25T17:45:42Zhttp://www.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php0074-02761678-8060opendoar:null2020-04-26 02:01:19.767Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz - Fundação Oswaldo Cruztrue |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
title |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
spellingShingle |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay Siqueira,Marilda M. respiratory syncytial virus rapid diagnosis immunofluorescence enzyme immunoassay |
title_short |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
title_full |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
title_fullStr |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
title_full_unstemmed |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
title_sort |
RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay |
author |
Siqueira,Marilda M. |
author_facet |
Siqueira,Marilda M. Ferreira,Vanja Nascimento,Jussara P. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ferreira,Vanja Nascimento,Jussara P. |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Siqueira,Marilda M. Ferreira,Vanja Nascimento,Jussara P. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
respiratory syncytial virus rapid diagnosis immunofluorescence enzyme immunoassay |
topic |
respiratory syncytial virus rapid diagnosis immunofluorescence enzyme immunoassay |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Two techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolaion in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory iliness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the originl nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the call suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible. |
description |
Two techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolaion in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory iliness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the originl nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the call suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible. |
publishDate |
1986 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
1986-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02761986000200013 |
url |
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02761986000200013 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S0074-02761986000200013 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Ministério da Saúde |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Ministério da Saúde |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz v.81 n.2 1986 reponame:Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz instacron:FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz |
collection |
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1669937646521024512 |