CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jaskowski, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, H. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jaskowski, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, H. R.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 1999, p. 137-139, Vol. 6, No. 1
1071-412X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Three Different Methods for Measuring Classical Pathway Complement Activity

Troy D. Jaskowski,1,* Thomas B. Martins,1 Christine M. Litwin,1,2 and Harry R. Hill1,2

Associated Regional and University Pathologists Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology1 and the Department of Pathology, Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine,2 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108

Received 30 March 1998/Returned for modification 8 May 1998/Accepted 25 September 1998

The complement system plays an important role in host defense against infection and in most inflammatory processes. The standard 50% hemolytic complement (CH50) assay is the most commonly used method of screening patient sera for functional activity of the classical complement pathway. Our objective in this study was to compare two newer methods (the enzyme immunoassay and the liposome immunoassay) to a commercial CH50 assay for measuring total classical complement activity. We conclude that both newer methods compare well with a CH50 assay and are equally sensitive in screening routine clinical sera.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: ARUP Institute, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108. Phone: (801) 583-2787. Fax: (801) 583-2712. E-mail: jaskowtd{at}arup-lab.com.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 1999, p. 137-139, Vol. 6, No. 1
1071-412X/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1999 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.