RESUMO
Objective To assess the differences in the specificity and the sensitivity in detecting specific IgM by indirect ELISA and capturing-ELISA methods,and to analyze the possible causes of those differences.Methods The HBc-IgM and EHF-IgM level in serum samples from activity Hepatitis B patients and hemorrhagic fever patients with renal syndrome were determined by both indirect-ELISA and capturing-ELISA methods,and the differences in the positive rate,positive threshold value and the specificity between those two methods were compared. Results Specific murine IgM diluted in PBS were detected by indirect-ELISA and capturing-ELISA,and the specificity and sensitivity of those two methods were similar.Results showed that sensitivity of indirect-ELISA was lower than capturing-ELISA in detecting specific IgM in serum from patients with activity Hepatitis B and hemorrhagic fever patients with renal syndrome.The IgM level in hepatitis B and hemorrhagic group treated with thioglycol became negative detected by those two methods,suggesting that both of them have the anti-IgM epitope-specificity.Cross reaction results demonstrated that the reagent detecting IgM from the two methods had the specificity to the specific antigen. Conclusion It is recommended to detect IgM level by capturing-ELISA method for the early diagnosis of acute infectious disease,pathological changes,immune reaction and prognoses of chronic continuous infectious disease.Applying the indirect-ELISA method to detect IgM level to diagnose acute infectious disease is to discuss in the future.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE To monitor human cytomegalovirus(HCMV) infection in patients with diabetes and its clinical significance.METHODS HCMV pp65-mRNA and anti-HCMV pp65-IgM were simultaneously tested by RT-PCR using the primer sequences from HCMV pp65 genome and ELISA method was used in 727 patients with diabetes and control group.RESULTS The positive rates of HCMV pp65-IgM and HCMV pp65-mRNA in 727 patients with diabetes were 11.14% and 16.64%,respectively.There was a significant difference compared with control groups(HCMV pp65-IgM,0.87% and HCMV pp65-mRNA,2.17%)(P