4.2 Article

Flow cytometry detection of Shiga toxins in the blood from children with hemolytic uremic syndrome

Journal

CYTOMETRY PART B-CLINICAL CYTOMETRY
Volume 61B, Issue 1, Pages 40-44

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20022

Keywords

flow cytometry; polymorphonuclear leukocytes; hemolytic uremic syndrome; Shiga toxins; Stx-producing Escherichia coli

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is the main cause of acute renal failure in early childhood. Most cases are due to intestinal infections from Escherichia coli strains (STEC) which produce by Shiga toxin (Stxs). Stx1 and Stx2 produced by STEC in the gut are absorbed into the circulation and, after binding on polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs), are targeted to renal endothelium. The aim of the present work was the development of a method to detect Stxs bound on circulating PMNs and to diagnose STEC infections in patients with HUS. Methods: White blood cells isolated after erythrocytic lysis were incubated with anti-Stxs mouse monoclonal antibodies in the presence of human serum to saturate Fe receptors on PMNs. After incubation with fluorescein isothiocyanate-goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G, flow cytometric analysis was used to demonstrate the cell-bound fluorescence. Results: The method was quick (3 h), sensitive (femtomoles), and capable of detecting both Stxs. The presence of Stxs was detected on PMNs from six patients with HUS: four patients had serologic or microbiological evidence of STEC infection, whereas the other two patients had no evidence of STEC infection when employing the standard diagnostic methods. Conclusions: The method described is rapid, simple, and based on commercially available reagents, and it might be more sensitive than the standard methods for diagnosis of STEC infection. It also allows the detection of Stxs in blood, a key step to monitor the pathogenesis of HUS. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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