4.7 Article

A Parallel Comparison of Antigen Candidates for Development of an Optimized Serological Diagnosis of Schistosomiasis Japonica in the Philippines

期刊

EBIOMEDICINE
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 237-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.09.011

关键词

Schistosomiasis; Schistosoma japonicum; Philippine strain; Serological diagnosis; SjSAP4; Sj23-LHD

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [APP1102926, APP1037304, APP1098244]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schistosoma japonicumis stubbornly persistent in China and the Philippines. Fast and accurate diagnostic tools are required to monitor effective control measures against schistosomiasis japonica. Promising antigen candidates for the serological diagnosis of schistosomiasis japonica have generally been identified from the Chinese strain of S. japonicum. However, the Chinese (SjC) and Philippine (SjP) strains of S. japonicum express a number of clear phenotypic differences, including aspects of host immune responses. This feature thereby emphasized the requirement to determine whether antigens identified as having diagnostic value for SjC infection are also suitable for the diagnosis of SjP infection. In the current study, 10 antigens were selected for comparison of diagnostic performance of the SjP infection using ELISA. On testing of sera from180 subjects in the Philippines, SjSAP4 exhibited the best diagnostic performance with 94.03% sensitivity and 98.33% specificity using an optimized serum dilution. In another large scale testing with 412 serum samples, a combination (SjSAP4 + Sj23-LHD (large hydrophilic domain)) provided the best diagnostic outcomewith 87.04% sensitivity and 96.67% specificity. This combination could be used in future for serological diagnosis of schistosomiasis in the Philippines, thereby representing an important component for monitoring integrated control measures. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

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

4.7
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