Cargando…
Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools
The following six methods for detecting rotavirus in human faecal samples were compared: electron microscopy, immune electron microscopy, immunofluorescence in cell culture, two enzyme immunoassays (Rotazyme, Enzygnost) and a latex agglutination test (Rotalex). Specimens were collected from 112 chil...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
1984
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6327296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02014331 |
_version_ | 1783509475639951360 |
---|---|
author | Morinet, F. Ferchal, F. Colimon, R. Pérol, Y. |
author_facet | Morinet, F. Ferchal, F. Colimon, R. Pérol, Y. |
author_sort | Morinet, F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The following six methods for detecting rotavirus in human faecal samples were compared: electron microscopy, immune electron microscopy, immunofluorescence in cell culture, two enzyme immunoassays (Rotazyme, Enzygnost) and a latex agglutination test (Rotalex). Specimens were collected from 112 children with diarrhoea. The relative sensitivities of the different assays for human rotavirus were as follows: electron microscopy, 84%; immunofluorescence, 86%; Rotalex, 88%; Rotazyme, 89%; immune electron microscopy, 93%; Enzygnost, 98%. According to our findings Enzygnost is the most sensitive method, but Rotalex is more valuable for screening a small number of faecal samples. No false-positive results were observed in the two enzyme immunoassays or in Rotalex. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7088116 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 1984 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70881162020-03-23 Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools Morinet, F. Ferchal, F. Colimon, R. Pérol, Y. Eur J Clin Microbiol Original Articles The following six methods for detecting rotavirus in human faecal samples were compared: electron microscopy, immune electron microscopy, immunofluorescence in cell culture, two enzyme immunoassays (Rotazyme, Enzygnost) and a latex agglutination test (Rotalex). Specimens were collected from 112 children with diarrhoea. The relative sensitivities of the different assays for human rotavirus were as follows: electron microscopy, 84%; immunofluorescence, 86%; Rotalex, 88%; Rotazyme, 89%; immune electron microscopy, 93%; Enzygnost, 98%. According to our findings Enzygnost is the most sensitive method, but Rotalex is more valuable for screening a small number of faecal samples. No false-positive results were observed in the two enzyme immunoassays or in Rotalex. Springer-Verlag 1984 /pmc/articles/PMC7088116/ /pubmed/6327296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02014331 Text en © Vieweg Publishing 1984 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Morinet, F. Ferchal, F. Colimon, R. Pérol, Y. Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title | Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title_full | Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title_fullStr | Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title_short | Comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
title_sort | comparison of six methods for detecting human rotavirus in stools |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6327296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02014331 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morinetf comparisonofsixmethodsfordetectinghumanrotavirusinstools AT ferchalf comparisonofsixmethodsfordetectinghumanrotavirusinstools AT colimonr comparisonofsixmethodsfordetectinghumanrotavirusinstools AT peroly comparisonofsixmethodsfordetectinghumanrotavirusinstools |