Cargando…

A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis

Background: Different serological tests are used in serologic diagnosis of brucellosis. The most widely used of these are Standard Tube Agglutination and Coombs anti-brucella tests. Whereas ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests have been in use for a long time, immuncapture agglutination test has been recently...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Özdemir, Mehmet, Feyzioğlu, Bahadır, Kurtoğlu, Muhammed Güzel, Doğan, Metin, Dağı, Hatice Türk, Yüksekkaya, Şerife, Keşli, Recep, Baysal, Bülent
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21814476
_version_ 1782209446785581056
author Özdemir, Mehmet
Feyzioğlu, Bahadır
Kurtoğlu, Muhammed Güzel
Doğan, Metin
Dağı, Hatice Türk
Yüksekkaya, Şerife
Keşli, Recep
Baysal, Bülent
author_facet Özdemir, Mehmet
Feyzioğlu, Bahadır
Kurtoğlu, Muhammed Güzel
Doğan, Metin
Dağı, Hatice Türk
Yüksekkaya, Şerife
Keşli, Recep
Baysal, Bülent
author_sort Özdemir, Mehmet
collection PubMed
description Background: Different serological tests are used in serologic diagnosis of brucellosis. The most widely used of these are Standard Tube Agglutination and Coombs anti-brucella tests. Whereas ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests have been in use for a long time, immuncapture agglutination test has been recently introduced and used in serological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic values of ELISA Ig M and Ig G and immuncapture agglutination tests with Coombs anti-brucella test. Methods: Sera from 200 patients with presumptive diagnosis of brucellosis were included into the study. Coombs anti-brucella test, ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests and Immuncapture test were investigated in these sera. Then, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive and positive predictive values were calculated. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive and positive predictive values were found to be 90,6 %, 76,3 %, 94,2 %, and 65,9 % respectively for the Immuncapture test, whereas they were found to be 73,7 %, 58,9 %, 84,2 %, and 42,8 % for Ig G and 72,2 %, 67,8 %, 85,2 %, and 48,7 % for Ig M. The Immuncapture test was found to be compatible with ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests but it was statistically incompatible with Coombs anti-brucella test. Conclusions: Immuncapture agglutination test yields similar results to those of Coombs anti-brucella test. This test is a useful test by virtue of the fact that it determines blocking antibodies in the diagnosis and follow-up of brucellosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3149422
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Ivyspring International Publisher
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31494222011-08-03 A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis Özdemir, Mehmet Feyzioğlu, Bahadır Kurtoğlu, Muhammed Güzel Doğan, Metin Dağı, Hatice Türk Yüksekkaya, Şerife Keşli, Recep Baysal, Bülent Int J Med Sci Research Paper Background: Different serological tests are used in serologic diagnosis of brucellosis. The most widely used of these are Standard Tube Agglutination and Coombs anti-brucella tests. Whereas ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests have been in use for a long time, immuncapture agglutination test has been recently introduced and used in serological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic values of ELISA Ig M and Ig G and immuncapture agglutination tests with Coombs anti-brucella test. Methods: Sera from 200 patients with presumptive diagnosis of brucellosis were included into the study. Coombs anti-brucella test, ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests and Immuncapture test were investigated in these sera. Then, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive and positive predictive values were calculated. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive and positive predictive values were found to be 90,6 %, 76,3 %, 94,2 %, and 65,9 % respectively for the Immuncapture test, whereas they were found to be 73,7 %, 58,9 %, 84,2 %, and 42,8 % for Ig G and 72,2 %, 67,8 %, 85,2 %, and 48,7 % for Ig M. The Immuncapture test was found to be compatible with ELISA Ig M and Ig G tests but it was statistically incompatible with Coombs anti-brucella test. Conclusions: Immuncapture agglutination test yields similar results to those of Coombs anti-brucella test. This test is a useful test by virtue of the fact that it determines blocking antibodies in the diagnosis and follow-up of brucellosis. Ivyspring International Publisher 2011-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3149422/ /pubmed/21814476 Text en © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Özdemir, Mehmet
Feyzioğlu, Bahadır
Kurtoğlu, Muhammed Güzel
Doğan, Metin
Dağı, Hatice Türk
Yüksekkaya, Şerife
Keşli, Recep
Baysal, Bülent
A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title_full A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title_fullStr A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title_short A Comparison of Immuncapture Agglutination and ELISA Methods in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis
title_sort comparison of immuncapture agglutination and elisa methods in serological diagnosis of brucellosis
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149422/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21814476
work_keys_str_mv AT ozdemirmehmet acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT feyzioglubahadır acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT kurtoglumuhammedguzel acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT doganmetin acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT dagıhaticeturk acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT yuksekkayaserife acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT keslirecep acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT baysalbulent acomparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT ozdemirmehmet comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT feyzioglubahadır comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT kurtoglumuhammedguzel comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT doganmetin comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT dagıhaticeturk comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT yuksekkayaserife comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT keslirecep comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis
AT baysalbulent comparisonofimmuncaptureagglutinationandelisamethodsinserologicaldiagnosisofbrucellosis