检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:热娜·吐尔地[1] 雷刚[1] 布仁明德[1] 孙石[1] 阿不力米提·买托呼提[1] 王信惠[1] 廖力夫[1] 徐秉臣[1]
机构地区:[1]新疆维吾尔自治区疾病预防控制中心鼠疫防治科,乌鲁木齐830002
出 处:《中华地方病学杂志》2013年第6期691-693,共3页Chinese Journal of Endemiology
基 金:十一五国家科技支撑计划(20078107A14);新疆高新技术研究发展项目(200611112)
摘 要:目的比较鼠疫监测中酶联免疫吸附试验夹心法(ELISA)与间接血凝试验(IHA)、胶体金试验(GICA)检测鼠疫F1抗体的应用效果。方法三种方法同步检测,比较鼠疫F1抗体的阳性检出率、反应滴度。结果在9个地区,采集血清265份;EHSA、IHA、GICA三种方法检出鼠疫Fl抗体的阳性率分别为10.56%(28/265)、7.17%(19/265)、6.79%(18/265);ELISA的平均滴度(2^5.107)高于IHA(2^3.894,t=2.358,P〈0.05)。结论ELISA的敏感性高于IHA、GICA;为选定适用的检测鼠疫F1抗体方法提供了参考资料。两种或两种方法以上方法同步用于鼠疫监测,可避免或减少重要数据错误造成的损失。Objective To compare the effects of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect hemagglutination test(IHA) and colloidal gold immunochromatography (GICA) in detecting plague F1 antibody in Junggar Basin. Methods The three methods were applied synchronously, and the positive rates and reaction titers of plague F1 antibody were compared. Results Of the 265 samples of rodent serum collected in the nine regions, the positive rates of ELISA, IHA and GICA were 10.5% (28/265), 7.17% (19/265) and 6.79% (18/265), respectively; the average titers of ELISA (25'1~7) was higher than that of IHA(23~, t = 2.358, P 〈 0.05). Conclusions The sensitivity of ELISA is higher than that of IHA and GICA, which provides a useful information in choosing appropriate method for detection of plague F1 antibody. Synchronized application of the three methods in plague 'surveillance could improve the accuracy of surveillance data.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.49