Comparison of stool antigen detection kits to PCR for diagnosis of amebiasis

Stark, D; Van Hal, S; Fotedar, R; Butcher, A; Marriott, D; Ellis, J; Harkness, J

Comparison of stool antigen detection kits to PCR for diagnosis of amebiasis

Stark, D Van Hal, S Fotedar, R Butcher, A Marriott, D Ellis, J

Harkness, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008, 46 (5), pp. 1678 - 1681
Issue Date:: 2008-05-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2008000206OK.pdf		109.75 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Stark, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Van Hal, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Fotedar, R	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Butcher, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Marriott, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ellis, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7328-4831	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Harkness, J	en_US
dc.date.issued	2008-05-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2008, 46 (5), pp. 1678 - 1681	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0095-1137	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/8895
dc.description.abstract	The present study was conducted to compare two stool antigen detection kits with PCR for the diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica infections by using fecal specimens submitted to the Department of Microbiology at St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, and the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, Australia. A total of 279 stool samples containing the E complex (E. histolytica, Entamoeba dispar, and Entamoeba moshkovskii) were included in this study. The stool specimens were tested by using two commercially produced enzyme immunoassays (the Entamoeba CELISA PATH and TechLab E. histolytica II kits) to detect antigens of E. histolytica. DNA was extracted from all of the samples with a Qiagen DNA stool mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and a PCR targeting the small-subunit ribosomal DNA was performed on all of the samples. When PCR was used as a reference standard, the CELISA PATH kit showed 28% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The TechLab ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) kit did not prove to be useful in detecting E. histolytica, as it failed to identify any of the E. histolytica samples which were positive by PCR. With the TechLab kit, cross-reactivity was observed for three specimens, one of which was positive for both E. dispar and E. moshkovskii while the other two samples contained E. moshkovskii. Quantitative assessment of the PCR and ELISA results obtained showed that the ELISA kits were 1,000 to 10,000 times less sensitive, and our results show that the CELISA PATH kit and the TechLab ELISA are not useful for the detection of E. histolytica in stool samples from patients in geographical regions where this parasite is not endemic. Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Clinical Microbiology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1128/JCM.02261-07	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Microbiology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Feces	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Animals	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Entamoeba	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Entamoebiasis	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	DNA, Protozoan	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	DNA, Ribosomal	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Antigens, Protozoan	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Sensitivity and Specificity	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Polymerase Chain Reaction	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	Comparison of stool antigen detection kits to PCR for diagnosis of amebiasis	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	46	en_US
utslib.for	0605 Microbiology	en_US
utslib.for	06 Biological Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	07 Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
dc.location.activity	ISI:000255678200016	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Life Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	5	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	46	en_US

Abstract:

The present study was conducted to compare two stool antigen detection kits with PCR for the diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica infections by using fecal specimens submitted to the Department of Microbiology at St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, and the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, Australia. A total of 279 stool samples containing the E complex (E. histolytica, Entamoeba dispar, and Entamoeba moshkovskii) were included in this study. The stool specimens were tested by using two commercially produced enzyme immunoassays (the Entamoeba CELISA PATH and TechLab E. histolytica II kits) to detect antigens of E. histolytica. DNA was extracted from all of the samples with a Qiagen DNA stool mini kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and a PCR targeting the small-subunit ribosomal DNA was performed on all of the samples. When PCR was used as a reference standard, the CELISA PATH kit showed 28% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The TechLab ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) kit did not prove to be useful in detecting E. histolytica, as it failed to identify any of the E. histolytica samples which were positive by PCR. With the TechLab kit, cross-reactivity was observed for three specimens, one of which was positive for both E. dispar and E. moshkovskii while the other two samples contained E. moshkovskii. Quantitative assessment of the PCR and ELISA results obtained showed that the ELISA kits were 1,000 to 10,000 times less sensitive, and our results show that the CELISA PATH kit and the TechLab ELISA are not useful for the detection of E. histolytica in stool samples from patients in geographical regions where this parasite is not endemic. Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/8895