4.7 Article

Frequency of serological evidence of Bordetella infections and mixed infections with other respiratory pathogens in university students with cough illnesses

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 3-6

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/313911

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Banked acute-phase and convalescent-phase serum samples from a previous study of respiratory illness in university students were examined for significant (greater than or equal to2-fold) increases in ELISA titers of IgA and IgG antibody to Bordetella pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and fimbriae-2 and greater than or equal to4-fold titer increases to agglutinogens by agglutination. ELISA titers of antibody to pertussis toxin could not be determined because of technical problems. Chlamydia pneumoniae infections were diagnosed by culture or by a greater than or equal to4-fold increase in immunofluorescence assay titer or a single high titer (greater than or equal to 512). Mycoplasma pneumoniae, influenza A and B, adenovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus infections were diagnosed by greater than or equal to4-fold increases in complement fixation titer or a single high titer (greater than or equal to 64). There were 319 subjects with cough of greater than or equal to5 days' duration, and of these, 47 (15%) had significant increases in antibody to B. pertussis antigens; 26 (8%) had significant increases to fimbriae-2 or agglutinogens, indicative of B. pertussis infection, and 2 (1%) had evidence of non-B. pertussis bordetella infections. Seventeen (36%) had evidence of mixed infections or cross-reacting antibodies (influenza B infections, 5; adenovirus infections, 4; influenza A infections, 3; C. pneumoniae infections, 3; and IM. pneumoniae infections, 2). Our findings suggest that bordetella infections are common in young adults with cough illnesses (incidence, 9%), and a surprising number of these are mixed infections with other respiratory pathogens.

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