Detection of chronic hepatitis C virus infection by four diagnostic systems: First‐generation and second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay and nested polymerase chain reaction analysis
Detection of chronic hepatitis C virus infection by four diagnostic systems: First‐generation and second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay and nested polymerase chain reaction analysis
复制标题
通过四种诊断系统检测慢性丙型肝炎病毒感染：第一代和第二代酶联免疫吸附测定、第二代重组免疫印迹测定和巢式聚合酶链反应分析
DOI：
10.1002/hep.1840160204
复制
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
13.5
通讯作者：
K. Kiyosawa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Y. Nakatsuji;A. Matsumoto;E. Tanaka;Hiroyuki Ogata;K. Kiyosawa
采用第一代和第二代酶联免疫吸附法、第二代重组免疫印迹法和巢式聚合酶链反应对100例非甲、非乙型肝炎相关慢性肝病患者和100例乙型肝炎相关慢性肝病患者的血清样本进行检测。在非甲、非乙型肝炎相关的慢性肝病中，第二代酶联免疫吸附试验（抗c22和/或c200）和第二代重组免疫印迹试验显示98%的阳性，而第一代酶联免疫吸附试验（抗c100 - 3）显示89%的阳性。2例第二代重组免疫印迹检测阴性的样品经巢式聚合酶链反应呈阳性，1例第二代重组免疫印迹检测阳性的样品经巢式聚合酶链反应呈阴性。然而，当使用另一组引物对第二代重组免疫印迹检测阳性的样品进行聚合酶链反应测试时，结果为聚合酶链反应阳性。因此，100%的非甲、非乙型肝炎相关慢性肝病血清样本经聚合酶链反应检测为丙型肝炎病毒RNA阳性。9例乙型肝炎相关慢性肝病样本第一代酶联免疫吸附试验呈阳性。在8例第二代酶联免疫吸附试验阳性的乙型肝炎相关慢性肝病样本中，6例第一代酶联免疫吸附试验阳性，5例第二代重组免疫印迹试验阳性和聚合酶链反应阳性。一个不确定的第二代重组免疫印迹检测样品为聚合酶链反应阴性。因此，第二代重组免疫印迹法在检测慢性丙型肝炎病毒感染方面似乎与聚合酶链反应一样有用，尽管注意到一些差异。第二代酶联免疫吸附试验也是一种有用的方法，但在来自B型肝硬化患者的两个样本（2.0%）中发现假阳性结果。(肝脏病学16:300 1992;305)。
Serum samples from 100 patients with non‐A, non‐B hepatitis–related chronic liver disease and 100 patients with hepatitis B–related chronic liver disease were tested by first‐generation and second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, a second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay and the nested polymerase chain reaction. In non‐A, non‐B hepatitis–related chronic liver disease, second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (anti‐c22 and/or c200) and second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay showed 98% positivity, whereas first‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (anti‐c100‐3) showed 89% positivity. The two second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay–negative samples were positive by nested polymerase chain reaction, but one second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay–positive sample was polymerase chain reaction negative. However, when this second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay–positive sample was tested by polymerase chain reaction using another set of primers, it was polymerase chain reaction positive. Therefore, 100% of the non‐A, non‐B hepatitis–related chronic liver disease serum samples were hepatitis C virus RNA positive by polymerase chain reaction. Nine hepatitis B–related chronic liver disease samples were first‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay positive. Of the eight second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay positive hepatitis B–related chronic liver disease samples, six were first‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay positive and five were second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay positive and polymerase chain reaction positive. One indeterminate secon‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay sample was polymerase chain reaction negative. Therefore, second‐generation recombinant immunoblot assay appears to be as useful as polymerase chain reaction for detecting a chronic hepatitis C virus infection, although some discrepancies were noted. Second‐generation enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay is also a useful method, but false‐positive results were found in two samples (2.0%) from patients with type B cirrhosis. (HEPATOLOGY 1992;16:300–305.)