实验大鼠泰泽病原体三种检测方法的比较  

Comparison of Three Detection Methods of Clostridum Piliforme Infections in Laboratory Rats

作　　者：丁聪[1] 冯洁 谢建云 陈露[3] 高诚 胡建华 

机构地区：[1]扬州大学兽医学院,扬州225009 [2]上海实验动物研究中心,上海市实验动物质量监督检验站,上海201203 [3]苏州大学基础医学与生物科学学院,苏州215123

出　　处：《实验动物与比较医学》2010年第6期415-419,共5页Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine

基　　金：上海市科委基金项目（08140901300）

摘　　要：目的 利用不同的检测方法调查了解我国实验大鼠中泰泽病原体的携带情况,并比较三种方法的检测结果,为合理选择实验室检测方法提供依据.方法 应用ELISA法,间接免疫荧光（IFA）法和套式PCR法三种检测方法对国内大型实验动物生产厂家送检的125只实验大鼠同时进行泰泽病原体检测,并对比分析检测结果,评估我国实验大鼠泰泽病原体的携带情况.结果 共检测125只实验大鼠,其中清洁级54只,SPF级71只,IFA法检出36只阳性,89只阴性,阳性检出率28.8%：ELISA法检出24只阳性,101只阴性,阳性检出率19.2%：PCR法检出6只阳性,119只阴性,阳性检出率4.8%;ELIsA法和IFA法阳性检出率要高于PCR法.结论 对于泰泽病原体的检测,可以采用IFA法或ELISA法进行抗体检测,对可疑的样品用PCR法验证.相比而言,IFA法具有简单,可靠、价格低廉的优点,可以用于实验大鼠泰泽病原体感染状况的初步调查和流行病学监测.Objective To investigate the infection states of Clostridium piliforme in laboratory rats and evaluate the usefulness of indirect fluorescent antibody assay（IFA）, nested-polymerase chain reaction （nested-PCR）, ELISA. Methods Specimens were collected from the rat colonies and detected for C.Piliforme by using IFA, ELISA and nested-PCR methods at the same time. The results of three detection methods were compared and analysis. Results A total 125 Rats, 36 out of 125 serum samples （28.8%） are showed to be positive by IFA; 24 out of 125 serum samples（19.2%） are showed to be positive by ELISA;6 out of 125 liver and fecal samples （4.8%） was positive by PCR. The positive rate of detected by IFA and ELISA were higher than PCR. Conclusions IFA method to combination with ELISA method can improve the sensitivity and reliability of the detection results. For the positive samples could be differentiated by PCR method. By contrast, IFA is a quick ,reliable and cheap method. IFA is available for the epidemiological investigation of C.Piliforme.

关 键 词：泰泽病原体 流行病学 间接免疫荧光法 酶联免疫吸附测定 聚合酶链式反应 

分 类 号：S858.91[农业科学—临床兽医学]