4.1 Article

Balamuthia mandrillaris, agent of amebic encephalitis:: Detection of serum antibodies and antigenic similarity of isolates by enzyme immunoassay

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 313-320

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2008.00333.x

关键词

Acanthamoeba; amebic encephalitis; ELISA; PCR

资金

  1. PHS HHS [U50/CCU915546-09] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detecting antibodies to Balamuthia mandrillaris, a free-living ameba that is an etiologic agent of granulomatous amebic encephalitis (GAE). As part of the California Encephalitis Project (CEP), we have tested serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from a subgroup of 130 hospitalized encephalitis patients (out of similar to 430 samples) over a 16-month period. Case criteria were based on clinical, laboratory, and occupational/recreational histories. All serum samples initially underwent screening by immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) staining with results ranging from no detectable ameba antibodies to titers of 1:256. In addition to the 130 samples tested prospectively, sera and/or CSF from 11 previously confirmed cases of balamuthiasis, six healthy individuals, and earlier CEP submissions with high IFA antibody titers were also tested retrospectively. Among the 130 samples, two cases of balamuthiasis were identified by ELISA and confirmed by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The availability of sera from human and animal cases and from varied geographic areas allowed comparisons of serologic similarities of the different Balamuthia strains and human sera. All sera, whether from human or other mammals, reacted with all strains of Balamuthia, as they did with Balamuthia amebae from different geographic areas. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results were consistent with the IFA results. Differences between readings were likely due to cross-reactivity between Balamuthia antigens and unidentified antibodies in serum.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据