4.2 Article

Simultaneous quantitative analysis of FcγRI (CD64) expression on neutrophils and monocytes:: A new, improved way to detect infections

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 328, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-200

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2007.09.002

Keywords

infections diseases; differential diagnosis; neutrophil Fc gamma RI; monocyte Fc gamma RI; bacterial infections; viral infections

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed simultaneous quantitative flow cytometric analysis of neutrophil and monocyte Fc gamma RI (CD64) in 289 hospitalized febrile patients. Microbiological evaluation or clinical diagnosis confirmed bacterial (n=89) or viral (n=46) infection in 135 patients. Patient data were compared with data from 60 healthy controls. The average number of Fc gamma RI on the surfaces of both neutrophils and monocytes was significantly increased in patients with febrile viral and bacterial infections, compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, we describe a novel marker of febrile infection, designated 'CD64 score point', which incorporates the quantitative analysis of Fc gamma RI expressed on both neutrophils and monocytes, with 94% sensitivity and 98% specificity in distinguishing between febrile infections and healthy controls. By contrast, analysis of Fc gamma RI expression on neutrophils and monocytes displayed poor sensitivity (73% and 52%) and specificity (65% and 52%) in distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections, and the levels did not differ significantly between systemic (sepsis), local, and clinically diagnosed bacterial infections. In summary, our results clearly show that the increased number of Fc gamma RI on neutrophils and monocytes is a useful marker of febrile infection, but cannot be applied for differential diagnosis between bacterial and viral infections or between systemic and local bacterial infections. (C) 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available