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 arrowReprints and Permissions
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 Messmer, T. O.
Right arrow Articles by Carlone, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Messmer, T. O.
Right arrow Articles by Carlone, G. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2001, p. 588-592, Vol. 8, No. 3
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.3.588-592.2001

Comparison of Two Commercial Microimmunofluorescence Kits and an Enzyme Immunoassay Kit for Detection of Serum Immunoglobulin G Antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae

Trudy O. Messmer,* Joseph Martinez, Fadwa Hassouna, Elizabeth R. Zell, Wayne Harris, Scott Dowell, and George M. Carlone

Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Received 6 November 2000/Returned for modification 6 February 2001/Accepted 27 February 2001

We compared the MRL and the Labsystems Chlamydia pneumoniae microimmunofluorescence (MIF) immunoglobulin G (IgG) kits and the Labsystems enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kit in a blinded study of 83 serum samples in which we evaluated titers, cross-reactivity to other species, and reproducibility. There was no statistically significant difference between the MRL and the Labsystems MIF kits in the endpoint titers of IgG antibody to C. pneumoniae. The correlation between the results obtained with these two MIF kits was excellent (r = 0.95; P = 0.001). The cross-reactivity of the C. pneumoniae-positive sera with C. trachomatis- and C. psittaci-positive sera was assessed for each MIF kit. For C. pneumoniae-positive sera with titers of >= 32, the Labsystems MIF kit exhibited more cross-reactivity to C. psittaci than the MRL kit did. The values obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit represented single dilutions of serum specimens expressed as enzymeimmuno units on a continuous scale. The results obtained with the Labsystems EIA kit correlated moderately well with those obtained with each MIF kit when they were compared for their abilities to detect IgG antibodies to C. pneumoniae (for the MRL MIF kit, r = 0.79 [P = 0.001]; for the Labsystems MIF kit, r = 0.78 [P = 0.001]). The results obtained with the commercial MRL and Labsystems MIF kits and the Labsystems EIA kit tested were reproducible; and the kits were standardized, had quality control reagents, and are suitable for detection of C. pneumoniae antibodies in serum and for use in interlaboratory studies. Validation of the use of these kits for clinical diagnosis still needs further evaluation.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 1600 Clifton Rd., MS G 05, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: (404) 639-1369. Fax: (404) 639-3123. E-mail: TMessmer{at}cdc.gov.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2001, p. 588-592, Vol. 8, No. 3
1071-412X/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.8.3.588-592.2001


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 © 2001 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.