免疫球蛋白含量的检测与分离技术探讨  

Detection of immunoglobulin contents and separation technology

作　　者：王娟[1] 焦小杰[2] WANG Juan JIAO Xiaojie(Department of Clinical Laboratory, Beijing Municipal Corps Hospital, Chinese People＇ s Armed Police Force, Beijing 100027, China Department of Clinical Laboratory, General Hospital of Chinese People＇ s Armed Police Force, Beijing 100039, China)

机构地区：[1]武警北京总队医院检验科,100027 [2]武警总医院检验科,北京100039

出　　处：《武警医学》2017年第4期355-357,共3页Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Force

摘　　要：目的探讨免疫球蛋白含量的检测与分离技术。方法选取武警北京总队医院2013-10至2016-10收集的90份免疫球蛋白异常血清,运用单扩法对血清IgG含量进行检测,将90份血清分为3组,每组30份,分别运用单扩法、免疫散射比浊法、免疫透射比浊法对血清IgG、IgA、IgM含量进行检测,然后对3种检测方法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常情况、免疫球蛋白含量进行统计分析。结果单扩法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常率分别为22.6%、12.4%、7.9%;免疫散射比浊法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常率分别为20.3%、14.0%、9.2%;免疫透射比浊法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常率分别为8.0%、1.5%、6.2%。单扩法、免疫透射比浊法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常率均显著高于免疫透射比浊法(P<0.05),但单扩法、免疫散射比浊法测定IgG、IgA、IgM的异常率之间的差异均无统计学意义;单扩法、免疫散射比浊法测定IgA、IgM含量均显著高于免疫透射比浊法(P<0.05),而免疫散射比浊法测定IgA、IgM含量又均显著高于单扩法(P<0.05),但3种检测方法测定IgG含量之间的差异均无统计学意义。结论单扩法、免疫透射比浊法测定免疫球蛋白含量效果较免疫透射比浊法好。Objective To explore the detection methods of contents of immunoglobulin and separation technology. Methods Ninety cases of abnormal serum immunoglobulin treated in our hospital between October 2013 and October 2016 were collected and their serum samples were equally divided into three groups. The contents of IgG, IgA and IgM were detected by the immunodiffusion method, immune nephelometry method, and immune turbidimetric method respectively, while the abnormalities of IgG, IgA, IgM, and the content of immuneglobulin determined with the three detection methods were statistically analyzed. Results The abnormal rates of IgG, IgA and IgM by immunodiffusion method were 22.6% , 12.4% and 7.9% respectively, those by immune neph- elometry method were 20.3%, 14% and 9.2% respectively, and those by immune turbidimetric method were 8%, 1.5% and 6.2% respectively. The abnormal rates of IgG, IgA and IgM detected by the single diffusion method and immune turbidimetrie method were significantly higher than those by the immune turbidimetric method （ P 〈 0.05 ）, but the difference of the abnormal rates of IgG, IgA and IgM between the single expansion method and immunoturbidimetry determination was not significant. The IgA, IgM contents detec- ted by the single expansion method and immune turbidimetric method were significantly higher than those by the immune turbidimetric method （ P 〈 0.05 ）, and the IgA and IgM contents detected by the immune nephelometry method were significantly higher than those by the single expansion method （ P 〈 0.05 ）, but the difference of IgG contents between the three detection methods was not significant. Conclusions The effect of single expansion method and immune transmission turbidity method is better than that of immune transmis- sion turbidity method.

关 键 词：免疫球蛋白 含量 检测与分离技术 

分 类 号：R533[医药卫生—内科学]