RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay.

7Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Two techniques for rapid diagnosis, immunofluorescence (IFAT) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA), have been compared with virus isolation in tissue culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in specimens of nasopharyngeal secretions. The specimens were obtained from children under five years of age suffering from acute respiratory illness, during a period of six months from January to June 1982. Of 471 specimens examined 54 (11.5%) were positive by virus isolation and 180 (38.2%) were positive by immunofluorescence. The bacterial contamination of inoculated tissue cultures unfortunately prevented the isolation of virus from many samples. Specimens from 216 children were tested to compare enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence. Of these 60 (27%) were positive by EIA and 121 (56%) were positive by IFAT. Our results suggest that the EIA technique although highly specific is rather insensitive. This may be because by the time these tests were done the original nasopharyngeal secretions were considerably diluted and contained more mucus fragments than the cell suspension used for IFAT. Of the three techniques, IFAT gives the best results although EIA may be useful where IFAT is not possible.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Siqueira, M. M., Ferreira, V., & Nascimento, J. P. (1986). RS virus diagnosis: comparison of isolation, immunofluorescence and enzyme immunoassay. Memórias Do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 81(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02761986000200013

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free