4.7 Article

Identification of Haemophilus influenzae serotypes by standard slide agglutination serotyping and PCR-based capsule typing

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 393-396

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.1.393-396.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To resolve discrepancies in slide agglutination serotyping (SAST) results from state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we characterized 141 of 751 invasive Haemophilus influenzae isolates that were identified in the United States from January 1998 to December 1999 through an active, laboratory-based, surveillance program coordinated by the CDC. We found discrepancies between the results of SAST performed at state health departments and those of PCR capsule typing performed at the CDC for 56 (40%) of the isolates characterized: 54 isolates that were identified as a particular serotype by SAST were shown to be unencapsulated by PCR, and two isolates that were reported as serotypes b and f were found to be serotypes f and e, respectively, by PCR. The laboratory error most likely to affect the perceived efficacy of the conjugate H. influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine was the misidentification of isolates as serotype b: of 40 isolates identified as serotype b by SAST, 27 (68%) did not contain the correlating capsule type genes. The frequency of errors fell substantially when standardized reagents and routine quality control of SAST were used during a study involving three laboratories. An overall 94% agreement between SAST and PCR results showed that slide agglutination could be a valid and reliable method for serotyping H. influenzae if the test was performed correctly, in accordance with standardized and recommended procedures. An ongoing prospective analysis of all H. influenzae surveillance isolates associated with invasive disease in children less than 5 years old will provide more accurate national figures for the burden of invasive disease caused by Hib and other H. influenzae serotypes.

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